# For Nail - The Psion



## Caeleddin (May 19, 2005)

Ok. Here is your thread, sir.

Please note that I sometimes run the PCs ragged (2-3 days without suitable rest period).

What is so broken about psionics?


----------



## Bront (May 19, 2005)

I had a thread asking about balance that's in the rules forum here somewhere (Was active a few weeks ago, something about Psionics and Integration), several pages, and didn't solve much.

I haven't had a chance to try them myself so I can't tell you.  Some powers look a little rough, but it all depends on how you run psionics in your campaign.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 19, 2005)

I'm not Nail, but I'll answer for him anyway.

There are several factors that are potentially broken about psionics.

First: all psionic characters have the ability to blow through all their abilities very quickly if they need to by using only high level powers and/or augmented low level powers. This means that they are better able to pull out all the stops for a big combat or a "only encounter today" scenario. They're not quite as good at pacing themselves and conserving resources as traditional casters, but by mid-high levels, that ceases to be a limiting factor.

Second: Wilders punch significantly above their weight whenever they use their primary ability for a power that augments very well. For instance, a wild surge can let a wilder throw out an astral construct significantly more powerful than anything a mage or even a druid could summon at that level. (And since it's the whole point of the wilder class, you can't really take it away or limit the wild surge easily).

Third: Psions are a bit like sorcerers in that they have a limited selection of powers known that they can cast spontaneously. However, since their powers augment, they effectively have many more useful powers at their fingertips than sorcerers have top tier spells. Furthermore, a lot of psionic powers include options that magic spells don't--for instance a psion with energy ball effectively has fireball, iceball, lightning ball, acid ball, and sonic ball at his fingertips. Sorcerers and wizards have a LOT of trouble getting that kind of versatility.

That's most of it. There are isses with a few specific powers too (Empathic Feedback, Schism, Hostile Empathic Transfer, Energy Stun, and Energy Missile are the most noticable) but those aren't systemic. In a campaign where the PCs are frequently run "ragged" it may be less of an issue than in a more traditional campaign, but I wouldn't really count on it.


----------



## Caeleddin (May 19, 2005)

Basilisk - A Psion's expenditure is proportionally higher than a Wizard. The Wizard's spells scale automatically as they go up in level. The Psion's do not. To actually look at it, you would have to say that a 8d6 Fireball is going to take up a 4th level slot and a 10d6 Fireball is going to take a 5th level slot.

A single level of Archmage would solve all of the Wizard's versatility problems and it does not even interrupt his spell progression.

I am not too sure about Wilders. I sort of skimmed over them. I'll take a deeper look at it this weekend.

You blow all your PPs in the first combat of the day IMCs, you are toast in very short order. Trust me. I have run a level 16 Sorceror out of spells before. My players learn fairly quickly to conserve their firepower.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 19, 2005)

Caeleddin said:
			
		

> Basilisk - A Psion's expenditure is proportionally higher than a Wizard. The Wizard's spells scale automatically as they go up in level. The Psion's do not. To actually look at it, you would have to say that a 8d6 Fireball is going to take up a 4th level slot and a 10d6 Fireball is going to take a 5th level slot.




That's the tradeoff and it works in theory--that's why I said that a real run them ragged approach would see fewer balance issues, and psionic characters aren't as good as non-psions at pacing themselves throughout multiple encounters.

However, brokenness typically shows up in peak output periods rather than the long haul and psionic characters all do peak output very well--so well, in fact, that there is reason to think that it could be broken. Other than the various schism/quickened/swift power/normal power abilities, there is simply the basic fact that you can't run a psion out of his high power abilities. They can keep tossing out max augmentations until they run out of pps entirely. Unlike a sorcerer or wizard, a psion will never be down to magic missiles and a ray of frost. That's not necessarily broken, but it is a significant change from normal D&D where magical powers can be gradually worn down and a character can only do his most powerful abilities a few times per day.



> A single level of Archmage would solve all of the Wizard's versatility problems and it does not even interrupt his spell progression.




Not exactly true. Mastery of elements does give a sorcerer or wizard more versatility but Archmage levels are only for the late game, come at a noticable cost (the high level spell slot, prerequisite feats, and the opportunity cost of taking archmage rather than fatespinner, divine oracle, initiate of the sevenfold veil, etc. classes). And even then, it doesn't give bonus damage for fire, bonus DC for electricity and switch saves from reflex to fort (evade this!) for cold.



> I am not too sure about Wilders. I sort of skimmed over them. I'll take a deeper look at it this weekend.
> 
> You blow all your PPs in the first combat of the day IMCs, you are toast in very short order. Trust me. I have run a level 16 Sorceror out of spells before. My players learn fairly quickly to conserve their firepower.




Sure. One other thing that I just remembered: Hustle/Psionic Lion's Charge. Those add such significant capabilities that, just by their presence, I would expect them to change nearly every melee combat build in order to aquire them somehow or other. There's no other way to move and make a full attack that's nearly so easy. I'm not certain it's broken, but that aspect is definitely game-changing.


----------



## Caeleddin (May 19, 2005)

Basilisk - A Psion that choose to do 10x level 5 spells a day (and this is with 18 Int) and NOTHING else at level 10 is gonna spend a lot of combat time reading a book


----------



## Jack Simth (May 19, 2005)

Let's see... assuming a psion with no bonus PP's and no manifester-level increasing stuff, a Psion making maxed manifestations will make a limited number of them, dependant on level:

2 at level 1
3 at level 2
3 at level 3
4 at 4th
5 at 5th
5 at 6th
6 at 7th
7 at 8th
8 at 9th
8 at 10th
9 at 11th
10 at 12th
11 at 13th
12 at 14th
13 at 15th
13 at 16th
14 at 17th
15 at 18th
16 at 19th
and 17 at 20th.

Now, that looks like a lot (for comparison, a Sor 10 gets 3 level 5 spells by default), but a sorceror or wizard also gets lower-level spells included at relatively little expense - sure, that sorceror has 3 castings of his level 5 spell, while the psion can manifest 5th level powers 8 times - but the Sorceror can still cast his five level 4 spells, his 6 level 3 spells, and so on.  Moreover, at 10th, that sorceror can cast six 10d6 fireballs and 3 10d6 cone of colds.... and STILL have room for his buffing spells (which are mostly 1st and second level).  So the Sorceror gets 90d6 damage in 10d6 increments, while the Psion is only getting 80d6 damage in 10d6 increments, with virtually no PP's left over for buffs.  Is a psion overpowered in an endurance campaign?  No, not at all.  

If you include metamagic and metapsionics, the psion with Psionic Meditation can burn and regain his focus (full-round equivalent, requires a roll vs. concentration) and spend an extra 2 pp's to make those 10d6's into 12d6's (8(for power directly) +2(for Empower) gives 8d6+4d6) eight times, for 104d6, all told.  The Sorceror with Empower can turn those 3 Cone of Cold's into Empowered Fireballs for 15d6 each; 6 10d6 regular fireballs + 3 15d6 fireballs for 105d6 damage, all told.  Meanwhile, the Psion has burned through all his power points while the Sorceror still has all his 4th level slots, 2nd level slots, 1st level slots, and 0th level slots open.... and he can spend his 4th level slots on more 10d6 fireballs, if he has a mind to do so, as well as spending those 2nd level slots on Scorching Ray (2 rays per casting, 4d6 each ray, 6 2nd level base slots) and those 1st level slots on Magic Missle (5 * 1d4+1 per casting, 6 1st level base slots).  Sorceror beats Psion at endurance in raw damage dealing, at 10th, at least.  Not sure about other levels, but I suspect it works out very similarly.

To be fair, a Psion might have Mind Thrust, and change all those d6's to d10's - in which case, he is potentially out-blasting the Sorceror in raw damage for just the sorceror's 5th and 3rd slots - of course, he adds that pesky mind-affecting tag, making many opponents immune.  

Sure, the Psion has more flexibility than the Sorceror ... but less raw power.


----------



## Testament (May 19, 2005)

Psions DO NOT have more flexibility than a Sorc, they're the grand daddies of mono-tasking.  A Kineticist can blow stuff up with horrendous efficiency.  And that's about it really.  An Egoist can buff like crazy.  On themselves only.

Astral Construct, while powerful, is a Shaper only power, so unless someone's spending the Expanded Knowledge feat to pick it up, its their schtick (and their main power).  Wilders are nasty as all Hades, but have 11 powers at 20th level, unless they're spending feats on Expanded Knowledge.  And they also have that painful problem of risking burning more of that sweet sweet mojo EVERY TIME they Surge, and spending the next round dazed.  I regularly play with a Wilder, and I have to say, that yes he is terrifying in a fight (surged Energy Missiles are a terror to behold, even when fixed to DC scale at a rate of 1 for 2 pps), but on average, his tank is dry after 3 encounters, since he WILL flub a surge, and lose his metacap's worth.

The only real flaw of psionics, as I see it, is that it is SO closely linked with the design brief of 3-4 encounters per day.

And now...
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=331253&page=1&pp=30


----------



## EyeontheMountain (May 19, 2005)

Well, after just geting done playing a 15th level psion in my home campaign (Ended in a TPK, but that is another story) I ahve noticed that psions are not really front tier casters i na group. Mainly becasue they are too selfish. A good wizard can haste his buddies, mass whateverthem and still ahve lots of boom left. And a whole hasted party is a lot nicer than a single fireball in almost every situation.

But the psion it is all ME ME ME! Sue he can do good stuff and is an excellent mbackup man, but you still need a primary caster out there. 

I agree wittheh posts above that a psion can be hell on wheels in a combat when he has points to burn. Using a Schism, a quickened power and a main power all in once round is a whole lot of d6s worth of energy ball, let me tell you. But it doesnt last long. Not long at all.

That said, the current psion is the best ever, and still a lot of fun to play. Well balanced.


----------



## two (May 19, 2005)

*Not Well Balanced*

I don't buy any of this talk.

Psions are simply not well balanced for many campaigns.  Note, I said "campaigns!"

There are plenty of campaigns where 4 encounters in a day (before resting) is extremely rare.  As in, it happens maybe once a year, when the party goes into a crypt or something like that.

I've played in multiple campaigns (long lasting, levels 1-15 or so) where we never, not once, had 4 or 5 encounters in a single day.

More to the point, 99% of campaigns do NOT feature 4 encounters a day every time the party gets into a fight.  

It's almost impossible to get 4 encounters in a day every day unless you are going through the "mega huge dunjeon-o-doom-o-rama".

And more to the point, most GM's don't have a lot of interest in running 4 seperate encounters in a day.  For the simple reason that this limits greatly the type and kind of encounters/situations the pary finds themselves in.

Meaning, that unless the GM wants to make his/her campaign of the type that features 3 (minimally) or 4 (will do it) encounters about 75% of the time, in order to insure the Psion has to make sure not to use up too many power points too quickly -- Psions will get off easy.

For every other campaign type, and this is the majority, Psions are unbalanced because of their ability to do great big damage in a short amount of time by using bunches of power points.

It's kinda similar to what would happen if Sorcerers, for example, were given the ability to burn 2 lower level spells to fuel a higher level spell, i.e. 2 4th level spells power a 5th level spell.  2 5th level spells power a 6th level spell.  This hypothetical sorcerer could burn through masses of spells very quickly and pump out lots of damge.  If there are 2 encounters a day, he's got enough spells to do this and rules the battlefield.  With 3-4 encounters, it's rough.  But it doesn't matter.  Because in most campaigns, most "days" involve 2 or 1 encounters. 

Personally, I think any class (such as Psion) that requires a very specific campaign style (multiple encounters per day) to be kept in line, is asking a bit much of the GM.  

And of the players, as well.  I know I would be annoyed as all get-out if everytime we travelled to point X we ran across 4 random monsters illogically strung together to keep the Psion limited instead of 1 or 2 logical, "easy to beleive" challanges along the way.


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

Here's a little picture I made a while ago, which might underline what two is saying.







It should be obvious enough, who's the Psion and who's the Sorcerer there. 

The comparison is done with actual (reasonable) numbers (i.e. 16 starting caster ability) at 10th level.

The dots on the vertical axis are the spell/power levels (from bottom to top), weighed by spell level x caster level cap to figure in, that higher level spells/powers have generally more effect than lower level ones, caster/manifester level isn't everything. The horizontal axis represents number of spell slots/manifestations at the displayed level in a day.

I suppose it's self-explanatory enough. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## DreamChaser (May 19, 2005)

in general, i've always found that when there is this intense a debate about an issue of balance, ultimately, the system is balanced.

My logic:  if it were complelety overpowered, only one or two loony munchkins would say that it was and their reasoning would mostly be based upon how cool their characters are.  if they were completely underpowered (like 3.0 psionics), then only one or two conservative DM loonies would be saying it was balanced, based upon their ability to challenge the psionic characters.

since people tend to go so back and forth on this, it must be too close to call.  Ultimately, that means, that like anything in the game, your game determines how well psionics fit.  I tend to run a combat light game.  Psionics are no stronger or weaker than any class.  I once played a halfling shaper who nearly defeated a bad guy who was designed (plotwise) to be undefeatable because of the abilities he was able to give his astral construct.

Ultimately, I think this debate ends up coming down to "do you like psionics."  If you do, then you tend to view them as closer to balanced, if not, you tend not to.

Really, psionics are like the cleaving half-orc fighter with max strength, strength buffing items, and a awesome greatsword (who actually appeared in the last game I played in; the DM hated that character so much): he can take down a wyvern (or an army of goblins) in a single round at higher levels.  Is the system broken?  No.  Are the abusable?  Of course.  Any game system is.

DC


----------



## Henry (May 19, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> I suppose it's self-explanatory enough.




To quote Mandy Patinkin, _"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."_ 

I'm not necessarily terrible on statistics, but every time you use that graph, with no legend, no values,  and no X-Y labels, I still cannot make out what it's supposed to mean, even with your explanation. Maybe if you posted a table of the actual values used?


----------



## two (May 19, 2005)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> in general, i've always found that when there is this intense a debate about an issue of balance, ultimately, the system is balanced.
> 
> My logic:  if it were complelety overpowered, only one or two loony munchkins would say that it was and their reasoning would mostly be based upon how cool their characters are.  if they were completely underpowered (like 3.0 psionics), then only one or two conservative DM loonies would be saying it was balanced, based upon their ability to challenge the psionic characters.
> 
> ...




You are both right and wrong.

It is true that "your game determines how psionics fits."  Really, that's it.

Lots of encounters per day = everything balances nicely.

1-2 encounters a day = psionics gets a big and unpropotional lift.

It's really not about "if you ilke psionics."  I like it fine.  I just don't want to have one style of magic (psionics) tell me, as a GM, what style of campaign I need to run (high encounter number per day).

It's also not "too close to call" within any given campaign.  If you have 2 fights a day (at most) it's not too close to call -- psionic-users will look and feel more powerful than other classes.  If you have 4 encounters per day, it's also not too close to call.  Psionics will look and feel balanced.  If you have a nice mix (some days 1 encounter, other days 5 encounters) it's probably balanced, because the PC's never know what to expect.

The rest of the time (to repeat, most campaigns I've seen/ played in), with 2 or less encounters per day as a rule, psionics is quite nasty.  This is also not too close to call, it's very obvious to the players (and the GM) what's going.

So the real question is:  is a class "balanced" if it requires one distinct type of campaign style?  (note that this is quite a different question from "is something balanced within a given encounter/area battle/specific challenge").

I would say no, because there isn't any overt warning/instruction to the GM regarding this issue, such as "hey GM's, if you allow psionic PC's, make sure to keep the encounter-per-day ratio high".  They are presented as "balanced" within any campaign/any setting.  And that's just bunk.  Even 1 encounter-a-day (on average) campaigns are not particularly rare -- these obivously give psions free reign to do their worst in as short a period as time as they can manage.


----------



## azmodean (May 19, 2005)

It seems to me that there is some kind of consensus as to the fact that the psion requires a certain number of encounters per day to balance it with the rest of the classes.  In a general sense this is true of many of the classes.  A fighter can keep killing enemies sufficiently weaker than himself all day long, while a sorceror or wizard will run out of spell resources within a few minutes.  The issue seems to be more extreme with the psion, but it is really the same issue.  The balance of the entire game assumes a certain mix of challenges of varying difficulty.  If you only fight undead for instance, a rogue is pretty much useless.
Personally, I think any class (such as Rogue) that requires a very specific campaign style (fighting living enemies) to be kept useful, is asking a bit much of the GM.
I really think the entire argument about the balance of Psions comes down to the issue of wether you think multiple encounters per day is resonable.  There are many, many features of the system that push you into a particular style of play, this just happens to be one that many disagree with.

I have one caveat for this issue though.  You do not have to have multiple encounters a day in order to convince your players to conserve their resources.  You just have to have the threat of multiple encounters, which I believe is very resonable.

Concerning Thanee's diagram.  You seem to be saying with this diagram that a sorceror clearly has less spell power than a psion of the same level.  For a psion, raw manefester level does very little, but for an arcane caster however, it has a very large effect, which somewhat invalidates your point.  I am aware that pure dice of damage does not represent all of the nuances of the spells available, but it is simply the most accessable number for comparason.  Setting aside metamagic for now, the best either caster can do is 10d6 damage per spell/power, and the arcane caster can achieve that with a 3rd or higher level spell, while the psion must expend a 5th level power's worth of PSPs in order to achieve the same effect.  Even then, the sorceror still has a selection of 2nd and 1st level spells left than can have a significant effect on combat, while the Psion has long since run out of abilities.

I have to agree with EyeontheMountain, the thing I do not like about psions is that they are not "team players".  They can heal, but only themselves, they can buff, but only themselves.  If you are running an "every man for himself" game it isn't as much of an issue, but in a team-oriented game it leaves the psion as an outsider.

Lastly, there are several individual powers that I have issues with from a balance point of view, but no more so than some of the arcane and divine spells.  As a whole I find the Psion well-balanced with the rest of the group as long as they understand that it is never safe to blow all of their power on a single encounter.


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'm not necessarily terrible on statistics, but every time you use that graph, with no legend, no values, and no X-Y labels, I still cannot make out what it's supposed to mean, even with your explanation. Maybe if you posted a table of the actual values used?




That's why I explained below, what the x/y is supposed to mean. 

The red graph is a 10th-level sorcerer's spells per day. Every "step" of the graph represents one spell level from 5th down to 1st (effectively ignoring 0th level spells). The length of each such "step" is corresponding to the number of slots of that level.

The blue graph is a 10th-level psion's full-augmentation manifestations per day.

The dots along the vertical axis are at the following positions:
{5 (1st x 5 CL), 10 (2nd x 5 CL), 30 (3rd x 10 CL), 40 (4th x 10 CL), 50 (5th x 10 CL)}.

They represent the "value" or "effect" of one sorcerer spell (or psion power, the basic system with power level and manifester level is the same) of the given level at caster level 10th. Every full-augmentation manifestation is, obviously, valued as a 5th level power at manifester level 10th (this is, of course, just one of many possibilities how the psion could distribute the power points over the day... the most aggressive one, going full power all the time (there are numerous other options)).

The actual numbers are in the PHB and XPH (the example characters have a Cha/Int of 20 IIRC (16 base +2 lvl up +2 enhancement)). This is just meant to visualize them and bring them into relation with each other.

The point is, that if in a day you have a certain number of encounters, and for the sake of comparing what is possible, both use their best spells/powers available at all times, they start out about equal, but the psion quickly has an advantage (the blue area above the purple one), when the sorcerer's 5th level slots run out, and only after the psion has burnt all PP the sorcerer slowly catches up and eventually even gets ahead in terms of total effect generated in a given day.

This, however, requires, that there are enough situations to use all those spell slots, which - as experience shows - isn't the case in an average day at this level. And that is what two meant above.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

azmodean said:
			
		

> Concerning Thanee's diagram.  You seem to be saying with this diagram that a sorceror clearly has less spell power than a psion of the same level.




No.  They have about the same (blue area ~ red area), the sorcerer even has slightly more, I think.

What I'm saying is, that this total effect (or spell power) only comes to bear, if the sorcerer can expend all spell slots in a day. The psion has it very easy to bring the full power to bear.

And this results in the psion having a higher impact on an average day.

I explicitly did not use any specific examples there (which might make things a bit confusing, admittedly).



> Setting aside metamagic for now, the best either caster can do is 10d6 damage per spell/power, and the arcane caster can achieve that with a 3rd or higher level spell, while the psion must expend a 5th level power's worth of PSPs in order to achieve the same effect.




See, this is exactly, why I did not use damage dice or any other specific spells/powers for the comparison. A 5th level spell/power dealing 10d6 is _not_ equal to a 3rd level spell/power dealing 10d6. It's - depening on the situation, as usual, of course - much higher!

Take for example (sorry for going non-core, but it's one staple spell and one that compares well to it to show this): _Fireball_ and _Firebrand_ (from Magic of Faerûn). Both deal 10d6 fire damage in an area, but the 5th level spell's area is almost freely shapeable, thereby allowing much, much more targets than the 3rd level spell, and thus a much higher effect.

Doesn't always come to bear, but just to get the general idea, why I only compare spell level x caster level here and no specific effects. It's hard to compare a _Dominate Person_ to a _Fireshield_ after all. 



> Even then, the sorceror still has a selection of 2nd and 1st level spells left than can have a significant effect on combat, while the Psion has long since run out of abilities.




Of course! But this "effect" has by then already been generated by the psion, that is the blue area above the purple area. The sorcerer is just trying to keep up afterwards.

It's like on a long-distance run, if the psion has 3 laps done by the time, the sorcerer has only 2. He's already in the goal, while the sorcerer is still running to complete the 3rd lap.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Taren Seeker (May 19, 2005)

OK take a Psion 10, Sorc  10 both with 20 in the primary stat. You only have 1 encounter in a day, and say it lasts 4 rounds, then the Psion is going to have 77 power points left after using max augmentations. But then, the sorcereror could use his 4 5th level spell slots and still have 6 4th level slots left, as well as all of his lower level slots. That's IF the Sorceror wants to use his highest level slots: free scaling doesn't force him to do that.

Basically it seems like neither class has been seriously depleted by 1 encounter a day. I don't see a problem there.


----------



## azmodean (May 19, 2005)

Short answer, I just think the scale of effects is different, The psion does "sprint" better (definitely not trying to argue against that one) but I think the sorceror keeps up pretty well, and in terms of total effect the sorceror will get much more done if he actually uses all of his spell slots (however unlikely this may be).  In summary, in the average case I think they are approximately equal, with the psion having better peak output, but the sorceror having more total effect available in a day.

Just for clarity, my understanding is that you are saying they both have the same total effect output in a day, but the psion can unload his effects faster.

Overall, I think the Psionic rules need a bit more polishing, but are overall workable.


----------



## Nail (May 19, 2005)

Aaack!  I missed this thread start-up!  Sorry, Caeleddin.  I'll get to this tomorrow, after completing my lecture prep. for Chem.  It's a fun/good topic. (Mixed up my identifiers there, I think.  "How Psionics is out of balance" is the good topic....although Chemistry is a good one too.  )


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

azmodean said:
			
		

> Just for clarity, my understanding is that you are saying they both have the same total effect output in a day, but the psion can unload his effects faster.




Yup, roughly (the sorcerer is slightly higher, but not much). 

(And the psion can, but doesn't have to unload his effects faster; there are plenty strategies available, not just this one).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

What I also think, and which also matches my experiences playing arcane spellcasters, is, that the bulk of a spellcasters overall power lies within the top two or maybe three spell levels. Everything below is certainly nice and still useful, but doesn't affect the overall total as much as the higher level spells.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

Taren Seeker said:
			
		

> Basically it seems like neither class has been seriously depleted by 1 encounter a day. I don't see a problem there.




Heh. Yep, that's the other extreme. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## DreamChaser (May 19, 2005)

I actually don't agree with the "minimum encounters" idea; not as it seems others are using it.  Seems like most people are saying encounters when they mean combats.

Everything in D&D is an encounter.  A psion who wants to be useful should have powers that will be useful in encounters with traps, with social situations, with puzzles, with combat etc.  I run very few traditional combats but I have never had a game with fewer than 10 encounters on a meaninful day.

If your game is purely combat driven, then you should have minimum combats otherwise, what else are you doing.  If you run a mixed game, make sure that psionic characters will regret only taking combat powers.  If you never give a psionic character a reason to use their powers until the single fight agaisnt the BBEG at the end of the day, then it is your own fault that they have 100% of their PP left.

Two solutions are: 

keep in mind that there are other things psionics can be used for (perhaps require players to choose some powers that are non-combat oriented)

or

make the BBEG stronger.

DC


----------



## Caeleddin (May 19, 2005)

Empathic Transfer and Body Adjustment ensures that the Psion can heal as well if need be. They can be team players, if the player plays them that way.


Now, for Thanee's assertion that Sorcerors are only slightly more powerful than a Psion. A 20 level Psion has 343 PPs. A Sorceror has the equivalent of 486 PPs from spell slots alone. This does not take into account the Sorceror's 0 level slots or the fact that the Sorceror's spells auto-scale.

For example, the level 20 Psion has to expend 20 PP to do 20d6 damage. This is the equivalent of a level 10 spell. The level 20 Sorceror can do the same with an augmented 9th level power for the equivalent of 17 PP. This is even more evident for 3 level spells like Fireball (which the Psion only get as a level 4 spell). To get 10d6 damage, the Psion has to expend 10 PP. The Sorceror expends the equivalent of 5.

As you can see, the Sorceror has a LOT more power than the "slight" edge that Thanee asserts.

Now, if you do the same maths with a Wizard, then you get the equivalent of 324 for the Wizard. Disadvantaged by the Wizard's inability to spontaneous cast but advantaged by the fact that his spells autoscale and he has 0 level spell slots, the Psion is more like the Wizard than the Sorceror in terms of power.


For those of you that insist on DMs being forced to run a certain style of campaign, you are wrong. You only have to threaten the players with a day with a lot of encounters. Keeping things uncertain and interesting is the DMs job. What you are advocating is that the DM only have 1 or 2 encounters a day. Anything more is "unrealistic". That's boring. Sorry. In my experience, you get long days and you get short days. Sometimes, nothing happens, and at others, you get snowed under. The very threat of being snowed under will keep most casters in line. The others that don't usually gets eliminated fairly quickly.


Last but not least, because of augmentation, Globes of Invulnerability will hose the Psion fair effectively. You may augment it to the nines, but at the end of the day, Energy Ball is still a level 4 power.


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

Caeleddin said:
			
		

> A Sorceror has the equivalent of 486 PPs from spell slots alone.




This number is what you get to, if you do not take spell levels into account.

Saying that a 3rd level spell at caster level 10th is equivalent to 10 PP is simply wrong.

It is not. It's a lot weaker than 10 PP, because 10 PP give you a 5th level "spell" at 10th "caster level".

A psion is completely unable to produce the effect of a 3rd "level spell" at 10th "caster level", as spell level scales automatically, when a power gets augmented.

That's why I compare it with both spell level and caster level in mind, not just one, because otherwise you are not comparing the same thing!

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Caeleddin (May 19, 2005)

Actually, I calculated it at:

9th level slot = 17PP
8th = 15
7th = 13
.
.
.
.
.
1st = 1

The Sorceror still came up ahead and the Wizared about the same. If you add the free autoscale augmentation, the Psion and the arcane casters are not even in the same ballpark!


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

To turn this into some numbers, a 20th level sorcerer has 6 slots of every level.
With a reasonable caster ability of 30 that's 3/3/2/2/2/2/1/1/1 bonus slots.

Counting 0th level as ½, the total power (SL x capped CL x slots) is:

½ x 5 x 6 + 1 x 5 x 9 + ... + 9 x 20 x 7 = 5,380.5

For the 20th level psion there are 343 PP plus 100 PP. 443 / 20 = 22 (3 left).

2 x 3 x 1 + 10 x 20 x 22 = 4,406

That's about 20% more total effect for the 20th-level sorcerer in a day (above example is at 10th level, where numbers are a bit different, of course), but to take advantage of that, the sorcerer has to cast the whole 77 spells! How often would that happen? Almost never, I suppose.

On the flip side, at this level, the psion can manifest 22 powers of a 10th spell level equivalent!

The sorcerer has 7 spells of 9th level, 7 spells of 8th level and 7 spells of 7th level only to compare with those.

And to get to the same 4,406 total effect, the sorcerer will also need all the 6th level and most 5th level spells in addition to that; not to forget the extra actions needed to cast them.

Sure, there are still quite a few 0th thru 4th (and even some 5th) level spells left then, but what good are they, if you almost never get to use them? 

The psion's speed advantage, however, is always there, and even moreso at high levels, where this is about the most important quality.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

Caeleddin said:
			
		

> Actually, I calculated it at:




Ok, that's certainly better, but not taking auto-scaling into account is also not right, tho it is a fairly reasonable estimate, admittedly. 



> The Sorceror still came up ahead and the Wizared about the same. If you add the free autoscale augmentation, the Psion and the arcane casters are not even in the same ballpark!




Actually they are, and the difference is even lower than adding up the minimum caster levels for the slots.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Corlon (May 19, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> What I also think, and which also matches my experiences playing arcane spellcasters, is, that the bulk of a spellcasters overall power lies within the top two or maybe three spell levels. Everything below is certainly nice and still useful, but doesn't affect the overall total as much as the higher level spells.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




That's true, but the arcane casters still have the really annoying (well, speaking from the DM point of view) utility spells like invisibility and such which can make or break encounters if used strategically, and fireballs are always a nice damaging spell even after the levels scale.  It seems that the psions are good at one and pretty much one (well maybe three) things, and other than that they can't really do much.  They also aren't the greatest at aiding groups (as someone else pointed out I think).

Then again, I'm not really the biggest expert on psionics, so if I'm wrong somewhere please tell me.





But on the other side of the things, many of the arguments about 3.0 haste and such was that it allowed a character to unload spells MUCH faster than normal, and it seems that that's what the psion is being able to do...in a less powerful way mayhaps.  

The psions don't seems overpowered to me, but they do change the way a DM has to look at their campaign.


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

Corlon said:
			
		

> It seems that the psions are good at one and pretty much one (well maybe three) things, and other than that they can't really do much.  They also aren't the greatest at aiding groups (as someone else pointed out I think).




Psions get a fair share of utility, too. Where they really lose out is helping the party, since most powers are rather self-centered. 



> But on the other side of the things, many of the arguments about 3.0 haste and such was that it allowed a character to unload spells MUCH faster than normal, and it seems that that's what the psion is being able to do...in a less powerful way mayhaps.




That's a good comparison, IMHO.

It has been shown in 3.0, that spellcasters shall not unload their already pretty devastating potential any faster. Especially at higher levels, they already are at the top of the border.

Psionics now reintroduce this "problem" into 3.5, that they are able to squeeze more power into a shorter time frame. They break the border, which the 3.5 rules tried to set with spellcasters, in a similar way as _Haste_ did in 3.0. Thus they break the core balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters (and even with those, the spellcasters are already ahead at higher levels, tho not nearly as bad as in 3.0).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Caeleddin (May 19, 2005)

Thanee - Let's just run with the base here.

At 343 PP, with augmentation maxxed for max damage that is about 343d6 damage.

At level 20, you can get 343d6 in 24 spell slots or the equivalent of (17x6+5x6+9x6+7x6) 228 PP. You have not yet touched 6th, 7th 8th, 2nd, 1st and 0 level spell slots yet.


As an example, let us assume that Disintegrate is the best damage spell out there (it is, actually, for 2:1 damage to CL ratio). The Psion can cast 31 of it at a set rate of 24d6 per casting for a total of 744d6 damage. A Sorceror can do (assuming he sacrifices all his higher level slots for it) 24 of them at 40d6 each for a total of 960d6. Again, his lower level spell slots are untouched. A Wizard can come up with 640d6, but he still has all of his lower level slots to back it up.


As I said, if you start taking free augmentation into account, the Psion and the arcane casters aren't even in the same ballpark.


----------



## Thanee (May 19, 2005)

Caeleddin, these damage comparisons are completely meaningless (see above for explanation).

Or do you really think, that _Disintegrate_ is more powerful than _Meteor Swarm_!? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Caeleddin (May 20, 2005)

For pure paper generic damage output. Meteor Swarm is better if you hit the target with every one of them, and the chap is not resistant to fire.

I have already addressed the reason why I think speed output is irrelevant to the discussion. Greater output rate is actually more beneficial to the NPC than the PC. The PC has to survive a bunch of encounters (or potentially so or so they think). The NPC can boom the crap out of the PC and either run away or die a glorious death a la Worf. The PCs may have a bunch of stuff hobbling them from doing just that (time constraints, etc.). The fact that PCs tend to be outnumbered by the BBEG's minions add to the problem.


----------



## Liquidsabre (May 20, 2005)

Actually speed of power output for the Psion is not only releveant but at the very core of the problem that the Psion has with being a balanced core class. The Wilder even more so. No offense Caeleddin but arguing that your "play-style" keeps Psions in check is not what I call a compelling argument to ignore the power output that Psions are very much capable of. 

It's alot like having two guys with guns; one a sorcerer, the other a psion. The sorcerer has a little more ammo in their cartridge than the psion but the psion has a switch for auto-fire on their gun and can unload bullets at much greater rate. Holding a Psion hostage with the constant threat of combat and enemies while saying: "Don't fire automatic, you'll waste all your ammo and then you'll get it!" isn't what I'd call an enjoyable environemnt for the Psion to be gaming in and not what I'd call a real solution for the poor design philosophy that the Psion suffers from.


----------



## Thanee (May 20, 2005)

@Caeleddin:

What your _Disintegrate_ example shows is, that the 20th-level sorcerer can put out a lot more effect, if both are restricted to 6th level spells/powers or lower. Big deal there. 

Now for a proper comparison let's assume there is a 9th level version of _Disintegrate_... _Mass Disintegrate_ with 1 target per level (not an unreasonable spell for the level, most mass versions add less than 3 spell levels even).

Then compare again what both can do in a day. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 20, 2005)

Also, keeping the PP and slots at the base level is not reasonable. Characters do not only have the base at 20th level.

And adding 100 PP, of course, adds a lot more than adding one 9th level, one 8th level and one 7th level slot, plus a bunch of lower level ones, which, I guess, is why you would rather like to not look at it this way. 

Advantage for the psion? Certainly, but that's a fairly _realistic_ advantage there.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Shadowdweller (May 20, 2005)

A very tricky subject, this balance discussion.  Much like the discussion between the relative powers Clerics versus Wizards, I think one really has to compare the spell/power list.  Which is difficult and often subjective.

Some general opinions I have between the two:

* Arcane casters generally have a much greater spell list, and HUGELY greater out-of-combat potential.  From dealing with random non-monster challenges (such as a yawning chasm) to shaping the environment about them, to creating economically unbalancing sources of iron.  As a corollary, many psionic powers...way TOO many if you ask me...only see use in combat.  They've lots of nice combat buffs, and blasting powers.  But little else.

* Partly as a result of a greater spell list, arcane spells are much better at dealing with a variety of save weaknesses.  That is, there are much more nasty arcane spells spread out between the three types...fortitude, reflex, will.

* Arcane casters have better party-buffs.  As noted by everyone else, from Haste to Polymorph.

* Arcane casters have better battlefield control spells.  Web, Acid Fog, Evard's Black Tentacles and the like.

* Most of the discussion regarding Psion power actually centers on a very FEW number of specific powers.  The Psion gets the benefit of casting these spontaneously, expansively, and with very high save DCs.  Examples: Energy Missile, Psionic Domination, Dispel Psionics.

* Aside from these few powers, and DESPITE augmentation capabilities, I actually find that the breadth and versatility of INDIVIDUAL spells tends to be much greater than that of psionic powers.  Example:  Plane Shift as a power is a utlity/travel ability.  As a spell (more effective for clerics, obviously) it's a utility/travel ability AND a will save death spell unless random enemy is equipped to deal with the Elemental Plane of Schmooze.  Example: Illusion spells vs False Sensory Perception.

Please note, I don't see these as necessarily meaning that the arcane caster is more powerful (or vise versa).  The capability to blast for more damage per round is a significant advantage at times.  But these DO serve to mitigate things.


----------



## Thanee (May 20, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Please note, I don't see these as necessarily meaning that the arcane caster is more powerful (or vise versa). The capability to blast for more damage per round is a significant advantage at times. But these DO serve to mitigate things.




Yeah, I totally agree there. The weaker overall power list, the discipline lists and weaker "party buffs" are definitely disadvantages, the biggest ones the psion's get even IMHO. Also psionic focus shall not be left out.

But they do not have a complete lack of out-of-combat utility, there are quite a few good utility spells in their list, too.

And, of course, there are also quite a few advantages (over the sorcerer), which have not been figured in either (near grapple immunity, silence immunity, bonus feats, better skills, armor use, faster power level progression, higher number of high level powers (much higher, if including augmentable ones), spontaneous Quicken, etc).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 20, 2005)

Caeleddin said:
			
		

> Last but not least, because of augmentation, Globes of Invulnerability will hose the Psion fair effectively. You may augment it to the nines, but at the end of the day, Energy Ball is still a level 4 power.




This is something I just thought about... those globes are often mentioned as cutting off a lot of the power the psion has as a counter-argument to the huge amount of high level powers they get, thanks to augmentable lower level ones.

Let me show you, how the psion's flexibility actually turns this into an advantage:

Let's assume the level where the big globe first appears: 11th (a bit unfair, admittedly* ).

A psion now has one 6th level powers, four 5th level powers and 133 PP (20 Int).
To put those PP into perspective, we are talking about twelve 6th level manifestations here.

The sorcerer has zero 6th level spells, two 5th level spells and five 5th level slots (20 Cha).

So, who's affected more by the globe, hmm?

* This is probably the most psion-beneficial level, of course, but look at it at any other level, and you will see, that the psion still has the full alotment of PP (not a single PP goes to waste, while the 1st thru 4th level slots are all unable to affect anything inside the globe) and a much bigger choice of known powers, even at 20th level, where the globe's effect is least drastic.

To be honest, I don't think the globe really affects the whole thing either way, since it's much too rare a sight, and then you still can use the lower level spells and powers to do stuff outside the globe (buffing for example).

This is just meant to put an end to the argument, that the globe makes psions look bad.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## two (May 20, 2005)

"For those of you that insist on DMs being forced to run a certain style of campaign, you are wrong. You only have to threaten the players with a day with a lot of encounters. Keeping things uncertain and interesting is the DMs job. What you are advocating is that the DM only have 1 or 2 encounters a day. Anything more is "unrealistic". That's boring. Sorry. In my experience, you get long days and you get short days. Sometimes, nothing happens, and at others, you get snowed under. The very threat of being snowed under will keep most casters in line. The others that don't usually gets eliminated fairly quickly"

This doesn't really answer anything or convince me of anything.

I'm not advocating anybody run their campaign a certain way.

I'm certainly not advocating that every campaign have X number of encounters per day, where X is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 200.

What I am saying is that, in many current and past campaigns, the vast majority of combat-heavy days involved 1-2 encounters, perhaps 3.  Majority, not all.  That's it.  That's a historical fact.  It's inarguable.  It's true.

Which means that, in these campaigns, a class that excells at, well, 1-2, perhaps 3 encounters a day would have done extremely well -- disproportionatly well.

The last thing I want to do is ANYONE telling me how to run my campaign, if it's using 1-2 encounters a day, 5 a day, 10 a week, 1 a week, whatever.

That's why I don't want Psions around, because they may force me to do something I might not necessarily want to do.

You say 1-2 encounters a day is "boring."  That's you.  I've played in campaigns like this in the past, and they were anything but boring.  That's a historical fact as well.  So that claim really doesn't get you very far.

Also, note, that it's not enough to keep the PC's guessing about the number of combats per day.  If you have 2 encounters in a day, but perhaps 3-4 more are threatening (but don't materialize), it doesn't matter.  The Psion can just burn all the power points up quickly. 90% of the time it's the right choice.  The other times, the Psion needs to use psionic-equivalent scrolls, wands, and items to keep useful.  The point is, unless you really DO often have 3-4 combats a day, you are not really limiting the Psion that much.  "Threatening" only gets you so far, after all.  A threat ignored doesn't change behavior, after all.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 20, 2005)

Ok, I just have to throw in my two cents before going to work for 3 hours and then getting off by my management to go see Star Wars (and then get the rest of the afternoon off, it's a tough job, but somebody has to do it  ).


Psions are powerful.

But, this 3 to 4 encounter nonsense is just that for a challenging encounter. Nonsense.

In a challenging encounter, it tends to be one encounter, sometimes two. Not 3. Not 4.

One or two.

This has repeatedly happened in our game since first level. I have an 8th level psion now, but just last week when she was still 7th level, she burned through all but 6 of her PP in a single combat (out of 56 PP).

In this particular combat, she had already used up 21 PP that day, 7 PP for Inertial Armor that morning, 7 PP for Interial Armor that afternoon, 7 PP for Thicken Skin just before the encounter.

Now granted, this was nearly 40% of her PP before going into combat, but even if she had not done that (i.e. buffing herself 24/7), she would have basically been limited to two encounters instead of one.

Again, not three, not four.

And, I am fairly conservative with my PP once in combat. I do a lot of 1 PP Entangling Ectoplasm type powers and she often uses her Psionic Meditation / Psion Weapon combo, especially against low AC foes (stunned, prone, flanked, etc.).

However, crap happens in combat and I am often forced to use more PP. For example, Empathic Transfer to heal a seriously wounded ally. Or, Dimension Door to get out of a serious jam.

All in all, I suspect that many in the "psions are broke" camp has not played them. It's hard to not use up most of your PP in a single encounter. For example, at 7th level, she could use up all of her PP in 8 rounds. Most of our combat run more than 8 rounds.


Anyway, I'll add more to this discussion later on this evening.


----------



## two (May 20, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Ok, I just have to throw in my two cents before going to work for 3 hours and then getting off by my management to go see Star Wars (and then get the rest of the afternoon off, it's a tough job, but somebody has to do it  ).
> 
> 
> Psions are powerful.
> ...





I'm honestly not sure how helpful of an example this is.  Is it typical for a Psion to burn 40% of their power points BEFORE getting into the first combat of the day?

Is this really a viable and good tactical strategy, or one that you just like to use, or one specific to the PC in  question?

What would happen if, instead of buring up 40% of those power points, they were instead used in the first few rounds of combat to do bunches of damage to the enemy (best defense is a good offense theory).

Why doesn't this Psion wear some light magical armor (mithral chain, mithral buckler) instead of using Intertial Armor/Thicken Skin?  Why doesn't this Psion want to use the great advantage of being able to wear armor?

In general, I'm wary of these sorts of specific (and unusual?) examples.


----------



## Nail (May 20, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It's hard to not use up most of your PP in a single encounter.



IME, both DMing and as a fellow player, I've yet to see the psion run out of power poitns and be sorry for it.

Add the data point to the over-all set, please.  

Generally, when the psion is low on PP, all the arcane/divine casters have run out of their higher level slots as well.   ...So everyone wants to rest, not just the psion.  

Moreover, in the high-level game we play, the party commonly teleports to a safe location to rest.  So having the bad guys ambush them while resting is problematic.  (Before you hit that _reply_ button, please note: I said "problematic", not impossible. No "the DM should change styles" comments, please.)

The arguement that "psions run out too fast, and that's their limitation" problem doesn't hold water, IME.  It's simply not a limitation.


----------



## Nail (May 20, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In a challenging encounter, it tends to be one encounter, sometimes two. Not 3. Not 4.



Could you explain this a bit more?  What is the "it" you are refering to?  I'm unclear on your point.


----------



## Nail (May 20, 2005)

Caeleddin said:
			
		

> What is so broken about psionics?



Thanks for the thread, Caeleddin.   

Here are my concerns, born out in play (using 3.5e):
Psions can manifest too many high (or highest) level powers.
In order to challenge the psion, you must have 2-4 combats per day (and one of those encounters had better include someone with a _Dispel Magic/Psionics_).
Psionic powers, psionic monsters, and psionic items require fundamental changes to other campaign magic-users.
Psions get many feats for free: Eschew Components, Silent Spell, Still Spell, Heighten Spell, Empower Spell, and Energy Substitution (all energy types).
Many Psion powers are either out-of-balance or have no non-psionic effective counters.
Psions are ugly.
....okay, maybe that last point isn't legitimate.


----------



## Thanee (May 20, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Could you explain this a bit more?  What is the "it" you are refering to?  I'm unclear on your point.




"Running out of PP" I think. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nail (May 20, 2005)

Ah.  Got "it".

There were just too many "its" in the post; I got turned around.


----------



## two (May 20, 2005)

*old haste parallel*

Another link to the old 3.0 "haste" debate.

There were those that thought 3.0 haste perfectly balanced because if a spellcaster did the Haste+Spell_of_your_choice on the first round of battle, and cast 2 spells per round after that, the spellcaster is "using up their spells twice as quickly as if they had not cast haste."  Which people then claimed made it balanced (somehow).

My standard reply to this is:  killing the enemy 2x as fast by using 2x as many spells in the same amount of time is far more advantageous than not.  When you kill the 3 giants quickly via haste+spells, they don't have a chance to do as many full attacks; don't get to damage your fighters as much; don't drain away Clerical healing spells as fast; etc.  Not to mention, the battle is over more quickly, conserving all the other party resources:  bard spells, cleric spells, druid spells, etc. etc.   Meaning, if the battle is over in 4 instead of 6 rounds, that's 2 rounds of spellcasting the cleric didn't have to do; 1-2 precious spells the bard didn't cast.  Etc.  Pretty obvious, and pretty obvious to the 3.5 revision team as well.

So, the question is, if a Psion DOES use up all their power points in, for example, 1 battle:  what does that mean, exactly?

a)  The Psion was incredibly wasteful and wanton in their use of power points.
b)  The encounter was very, very difficult, and the power points had to be expended to save the Psion, kill the enemies, rescue party members, etc.

As long as you are not incredibly inefficient, using up all your power points in one single battle isn't a bad thing.  The ABILITY to do so isn't a disadvantage, to be sure.  After all, if it was a Wizard instead of a Psion in the battle, perhaps the party suffers a TPK (it was the Psions' ability to max everything out that saved everyone's rears).

My point:  if a Psion isn't being wasteful and does manage to use all their power points in one battle, the party better thank their lucky stars they had a Psion around.  Else they might very well all be dead (the encouter was very, very, very tough).


----------



## Shadowdweller (May 20, 2005)

Regarding the whole 'encounters per day' thing, let's keep in mind that combat isn't the only PP sink, or spell sink.

As Thanee pointed out:


> But they do not have a complete lack of out-of-combat utility, there are quite a few good utility spells in their list, too.




A typical party may very well only have one or two encounters per day.  But are they likely to have only one or two CHALLENGES?

I.E walls to be climbed.  NPCs to be impressed.  Ominous-looking doors to be wary of.  Traps to be sprung.  Mazes to navigate.  Items to experimented with.  Itches to be scratched.


----------



## Dracomeander (May 20, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> Why doesn't this Psion wear some light magical armor (mithral chain, mithral buckler) instead of using Intertial Armor/Thicken Skin?  Why doesn't this Psion want to use the great advantage of being able to wear armor?




I'd like to address this point since it has been brought up several times in past threads.

At the very lowest levels, my psions will wear masterwork studded leather armor if he can afford it. If the party is willing to let the psion instead of the rogue wear the mithril chain shirt that we found, I'll even use that for a while. 

However, the psion has no proficiency with armor. None at all. So any armor worn - while it won't interfere with his psionic powers - interferes with anything else the character tries to do. 

Also, after about 5th level, the protection from Inertial Armor far exceeds the protection my characters can afford to purchase in the form of enhancements to any armor my character is willing to wear. Even at 11th level, when my psion gained a level in Elocator and gained light armor proficiency, it is still more efficient to gain +9 AC from inertial armor for 11 hours than to try to purchase a +4 mithril breastplate. The other consideration is the additional cost to get ghost touch put on the armor as incorporeal undead have been a frequent - not constant - foe in our campaign.


----------



## Dracomeander (May 20, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> So, the question is, if a Psion DOES use up all their power points in, for example, 1 battle:  what does that mean, exactly?
> 
> a)  The Psion was incredibly wasteful and wanton in their use of power points.
> b)  The encounter was very, very difficult, and the power points had to be expended to save the Psion, kill the enemies, rescue party members, etc.
> ...




This is a very good point and has a direct converse. There have been _*several*_ times that the party as a whole has been thankful for the powers and abilities my psion has brought to the team, but my psion has _*constantly*_ been thankful for the abilities and strengths the 1/2 orc barbarian and the warforged fighter have brought to the team. 

That is the key to the whole balance issue. Is the party working as a team, or are they each trying to outshine the others?


----------



## KarinsDad (May 21, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> I'm honestly not sure how helpful of an example this is.  Is it typical for a Psion to burn 40% of their power points BEFORE getting into the first combat of the day?




Your question is irrelevant to my original point that she would have still been limited to two combats (instead of the three or four combats as some earlier posters claimed).

You question also does not change the fact that she used up (and typically uses up) well over 50% of her PP in a single combat. I suspect that most psions do that as well unless they are really high level.



			
				two said:
			
		

> Is this really a viable and good tactical strategy, or one that you just like to use, or one specific to the PC in  question?




You tell me. Is +10 to AC with no penalties to hit or skills or movement or fatigue better or worse than +5 to AC (e.g. chainmail or a breastplate) and a bunch of penalties?

Do the math.



			
				two said:
			
		

> What would happen if, instead of buring up 40% of those power points, they were instead used in the first few rounds of combat to do bunches of damage to the enemy (best defense is a good offense theory).
> 
> Why doesn't this Psion wear some light magical armor (mithral chain, mithral buckler) instead of using Intertial Armor/Thicken Skin?  Why doesn't this Psion want to use the great advantage of being able to wear armor?
> 
> In general, I'm wary of these sorts of specific (and unusual?) examples.




Well, you play your way, I'll play mine.

This character has only gone unconscious once from first level to eighth (and that was at second level and due to her fighting all of the bad guys by herself because the rest of the party was stuck 15 feet below her and then she jumped off the ledge when she ran out of PP and knocked herself out).

The reason she does not go unconscious is that she took a lot of defensive powers.

She has offensive powers and uses them, but every character has offense. Offense sometimes wins the day, but what typically wins the day is good tactics.


This psion also has, on several occasions, helped take out the BBEG with Psionic Weapon and her Greatsword (on two occasions, she took out the BBEG all by herself with her sword). Now, she could use up feats or a level in another class acquiring armor, but that would limit her in other ways. And wearing armor without acquiring the feats for it would result in her rarely hitting with her sword.

In fact, at earlier levels, she often did more damage with her Greatsword than most of the fighter types. And, she also used leather armor at lower levels and eventually, +1 Studded Leather armor. But, IA makes them look weak and she eventually gave her +1 Studded Leather to the Ranger/Barbarian.


We have another Psion in the group who took 2 levels of Fighter and walks around in a magical breastplate and does not manifest Interial Armor.

He too runs out of PP very quickly using your (according to you, superior wear armor) tactic. The difference is that his character has gone unconscious on multiple occasions (one major combat in three?) and mine has not. Personally, I think that my tactic is not only superior, but that the example I gave is fairly typical in that psions tend to use up well over half of their PP in a single challenging battle.


PS. I do not always do 7 PP full Interial Armor, in fact, I mostly walk around with 1 PP Interial Armor up and then manifest a 7 PP one before going into combat, a dungeon, a ruin, whatever. But, we were in a threatening situation, so I had Interial Armor up 24/7.


----------



## two (May 21, 2005)

"You tell me. Is +10 to AC with no penalties to hit or skills or movement or fatigue better or worse than +5 to AC (e.g. chainmail or a breastplate) and a bunch of penalties?

Do the math."

er, just to state the obvious --

+2 mithral chain shirt, and a +2 mithral buckler grants +9 bonus to AC (armor and shield bonuses) for a total of roughly 10K. That's one of the best bonus-per-gold spent in the game.

That's certainly affordable at your level -- and has no armor check penalty at all.  NO feat needed.  It doesn't effect skills or movement in the least.

That's a +9 to your AC that requires no power points at all.

At the very least, it's a viable alternative to spending power points, thus my question.

And, if you can, be less snippy? I'm not trying to tell you how to play your PC (I honestly don't care); I'm just attempting to figure out your reasoning.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 21, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> er, just to state the obvious --
> 
> +2 mithral chain shirt, and a +2 mithral buckler grants +9 bonus to AC (armor and shield bonuses) for a total of roughly 10K. That's one of the best bonus-per-gold spent in the game.
> 
> ...




er, just to state the obvious --

That's 10,115 GP which results in +9 AC, a -1 to hit (buckler with two handed sword), and 15 more pounds to carry around.

Versus 0 GP and 2 PP (out of my 76 at 8th level for Inerial Armor and Force Screen) which results in +8 AC, a -0 to hit, 0 more pounds to carry around, and the flexibility to up my AC by as much as +12 with just these two powers alone (let alone other powers).


And yes, if the extra 15 pounds for the shirt and buckler puts her into medium encumbrance (which is extremely easy to do in DND), it does indead affect to hit, skills and movement (and also limits the Dex bonus for AC to +3).

Mithral armor does not prevent the 20 movement rate and -3 armor check of being in a medium load.


So far, this is not even close to being a viable alternative for a straight psion. At low level, sure. Buy some leather armor and use it. Not at higher levels.


And at 12th level and beyond with the Extend feat, Inertial Armor could be up over 24 hours straight (except when Dispelled) from one manifestation. You manifest it, you go to bed, the next morning you have all of your PP back and you are also "armored up". At 16th level, it lasts for 32 hours and even if you run out of PP on a given day, Extend Inertial Armor lasts long enough so that you can manifest it on the second morning.


----------



## Diirk (May 21, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Versus 0 GP and 2 PP (out of my 76 at 8th level for Inerial Armor and Force Screen) which results in +8 AC, a -0 to hit, 0 more pounds to carry around, and the flexibility to up my AC by as much as +12 with just these two powers alone (let alone other powers).






			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In this particular combat, she had already used up 21 PP that day, 7 PP for Inertial Armor that morning, 7 PP for Interial Armor that afternoon, 7 PP for Thicken Skin just before the encounter.




At 10 strength a light load is up to 33 lbs.. 12 str <= 43 lbs, 14 <= 58 lbs.. so I guess it depends how strong your psion is and what else you're carrying. But if 15 lbs is such a big deal, that suggests you have a quite low str (10?), so why are you wading into combat with a 2h weapon? The -1 to hit with the buckler isn't fair anyway, as then the buckler ac bonus wouldn't apply. He probably had in mind using a one handed weapon, or even no weapon at all. And like, using psionic powers or something.

Obviously you prefer not to play your character that way, but its fairly obvious it can be a good way to play it, as can be shown by you spending 1/5th your daily allotment of pp on boosting your ac by 10? for most of the day  Besides, it frees you up to pick different powers. (Which is the main reason I did a similair thing on my sorceror)


----------



## KarinsDad (May 21, 2005)

Diirk said:
			
		

> At 10 strength a light load is up to 33 lbs.. 12 str <= 43 lbs, 14 <= 58 lbs.. so I guess it depends how strong your psion is and what else you're carrying. But if 15 lbs is such a big deal, that suggests you have a quite low str (10?), so why are you wading into combat with a 2h weapon? The -1 to hit with the buckler isn't fair anyway, as then the buckler ac bonus wouldn't apply. He probably had in mind using a one handed weapon, or even no weapon at all. And like, using psionic powers or something.
> 
> Obviously you prefer not to play your character that way, but its fairly obvious it can be a good way to play it, as can be shown by you spending 1/5th your daily allotment of pp on boosting your ac by 10? for most of the day  Besides, it frees you up to pick different powers. (Which is the main reason I did a similair thing on my sorceror)




Have you actually played the encumbrance rules in your game? Or do you blow them off?

Everything in DND weighs a LOT.

A simple waterskin: 4 pounds.

A bedroll: 5 pounds.

A character with a 10 Str carrying a belt pouch, a bedroll, a single days trail rations, a waterskin, the Mithral Chain Shirt, the Mithral Buckler, and a Greatsword (which in DND is carrying next to nothing) is carrying 37.5 pounds and is in a medium encumbrance category by 4.5 pounds.

It is extremely easy to get into a Medium Encumbrance category in DND, even if you have a reasonable Strength. My psion has a Strength of 14, but even at 58 pounds for a light load, using the Mithral Chain Shirt and Mithral Buckler is over 25% of what she can carry and drops the rest of her allowable equipment to 43 pounds.


And for Mithral Armor/Shield to be viable for any character, let alone a psion, that character needs to allocate a lot of funds towards that in order to have a fair chance of not getting hit in combat. Funds which can be better used to enhance other abilities or shore up other weaknesses.

Plus for any character class that does not have any armor/shield feats, a Mithral Chain Shirt is the best armor that character can get without sacrificing to hit.  Once you get to Mithral Scalemail or heavier armor, a character without those feats will be taking a armor check penalty to hit.

My psion is an Egoist. Her strengths lie in boosting her AC and other physical abilities. It would be dumb to not play to her strengths.

Ditto for other psions. A Kineticist should attempt to blow opponents away. A Telepath should attempt to sway opponent's minds, etc.


Finally, even the other psion in our group (Fighter 2 / Kineticist 4 / Elocater 1) who is wearing a magical Breastplate still uses up PP in every combat boosting his AC and other defenses. He uses Force Screen, Concealing Amorpha, Biofeedback, and/or Precognition, Defensive nearly every combat.

But in order for him to wear armor all of the time (and qualify for the Elocater class early on), he had to give up PP and manifester level as well. Nothing comes for free.

He has 42 PP at 7th level whereas my character had 58 PP at the same level (at 8th level, he will have 55 PP whereas my psion has 76 PP and the delta will be even greater). So yes, you can go the armor route, but the fact that you have fewer PP to begin with (about 25% fewer in this example) can easily make up for the PP spent on AC when a psion does not wear armor.

Plus, my higher AC psion gets hit a lot less often and is less of a burden to the party Cleric. You can have all of the PP in the world, but if you are dead, they are not going to help you.


----------



## two (May 21, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> er, just to state the obvious --
> 
> That's 10,115 GP which results in +9 AC, a -1 to hit (buckler with two handed sword), and 15 more pounds to carry around.
> 
> ...




Ok, so much for you not being snippy.

And we are not talking about 12th level Psion with the Extend feat.  I'm asking why it's a viable thing for your Psion at what, 7th or 8th level?

One who uses a 2-handed sword on occasion in combat?  Yet the addition of 15 pounds drives him/her over encumbrance?  What are you doing in combat with a 2-handed weapon with a strength of <12 anyway?  Heck, why is a Psion that focuses on combat NOT using amor?

No saying you build is stupid, wrong, illogical, or inefficient.  But I don't think it's "typical", and examples coming from it are probably not too "typical" either.

PS the reason Wizards and Sorcerers don't wear mithral armor isn't weight, by the way -- it's ASF.  Psion's don't suffer this.  It's a chance for them to leverage another small advantage.  Which makes we wonde why you are not doing it.  Thus my question.

I was just looking for your reasoning for heaven's sake!  Play anyway you want, I could care less.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 21, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> Ok, so much for you not being snippy.




Who exactly wrote first:

"er, just to state the obvious --"

I merely repeated your own words back at you. If you do not like how I post, don't respond to me.

Pot calling the kettle black there two???



			
				two said:
			
		

> And we are not talking about 12th level Psion with the Extend feat.  I'm asking why it's a viable thing for your Psion at what, 7th or 8th level?




And I explained it multiple times in this thread, but you obviously cannot be bothered to actually read it.



			
				two said:
			
		

> One who uses a 2-handed sword on occasion in combat?  Yet the addition of 15 pounds drives him/her over encumbrance?  What are you doing in combat with a 2-handed weapon with a strength of <12 anyway?  Heck, why is a Psion that focuses on combat NOT using amor?




Because it is smarter to not focus on armor. Course, even with my explanations and the fact that my psion does extremely well in combat, you still refuse to see the obvious.

Open your mind up to other possibilities than armor.

My psion has a Strength of 14 and can do Animal Affinity to get her Str to 18 and uses Psionic Meditation and Psionic Weapon. THAT is why she is using a Greatsword. With just using Psionic Meditation and Psionic Weapon, she does 4D6+5 points of damage (without bumping up her Strength). How many Fighters do you know that consistently do 4D6+5 points of damage at 8th level?

Plus, my psion can boost her AC up to 38 if she so desires. Why would she want to be bothered with wasting her money on mithral armor?



			
				two said:
			
		

> No saying you build is stupid, wrong, illogical, or inefficient.  But I don't think it's "typical", and examples coming from it are probably not too "typical" either.




And that is why I also gave an example from the Fighter/Psion in our group as well.

I think a psion wearing armor and using a shield without another class that grants the appropriate feats is what is atypical here. Not a psion who does not have the feats wearing armor. That's dumb and not "typical". Personally, I think your suggestion here is lame.



			
				two said:
			
		

> PS the reason Wizards and Sorcerers don't wear mithral armor isn't weight, by the way -- it's ASF.  Psion's don't suffer this.  It's a chance for them to leverage another small advantage.  Which makes we wonde why you are not doing it.  Thus my question.




And I have answered it multiple times and you have ignored the answer multiple times.

It is stupid for a mid to high level psion to wear armor unless they have another class or a prestige class that gives them the armor feats. It is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage to wear armor without the appropriate feats.

Inertial Armor and Force Screen gives them a higher AC boost than magical armor and shield ever could. For an average of less than 2 PP per combat, a psion can get AC 18 from 1 PP Inertial Armor and 1 PP Force Screen and do BETTER encumbrance-wise than your example of +2 Mithral Chain Shirt and +2 Mithral Buckler for a whopping 10,000+ GP.

Plus, psions only have D4 hit points and cannot stand toe to toe with combatant types and monsters unless their AC is higher than combatant types.

Sure, a Fighter can have a lower AC and survive because he has cool combat feats and high hit points.

A Psion cannot.


----------



## two (May 21, 2005)

Well, given that you can't seem to hold a discussion with even a minimum of politeness, I'll just remove myself from the discussion -- [gone]


----------



## Diirk (May 21, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Have you actually played the encumbrance rules in your game? Or do you blow them off?



I keep most stuff on my pack horse. In a pinch tho, survival can replace the trail rations, Create Water the waterskin and a blanket instead of a bedroll.



> A character with a 10 Str carrying a belt pouch, a bedroll, a single days trail rations, a waterskin, the Mithral Chain Shirt, the Mithral Buckler, and a Greatsword (which in DND is carrying next to nothing) is carrying 37.5 pounds and is in a medium encumbrance category by 4.5 pounds.



You can do a few things to bring this weight down, including replacing the greatsword (which you aren't proficient with, anyway) with a shortspear. Or a quarterstaff if for some reason your 10 str psion *really* needs a two handed weapon.



> It is extremely easy to get into a Medium Encumbrance category in DND, even if you have a reasonable Strength. My psion has a Strength of 14, but even at 58 pounds for a light load, using the Mithral Chain Shirt and Mithral Buckler is over 25% of what she can carry and drops the rest of her allowable equipment to 43 pounds.



If you get desperate there's always a weightless bag for your requirements. However even without, I think most people could make do with 43 pounds if they so desired.



> And for Mithral Armor/Shield to be viable for any character, let alone a psion, that character needs to allocate a lot of funds towards that in order to have a fair chance of not getting hit in combat. Funds which can be better used to enhance other abilities or shore up other weaknesses.



2000gp for the initial armour/shield (+5 ac), then +2000 for 2 more ac, +6000 for another 2, etc. Its certainly a tradeoff, it depends on if you have powers you'd rather take than inertial armour/forcescreen or not. If you have the powers to spend I can see why many characters would prefer Inertial Armour to mithril chain; heck it even scales, something mage armour doesn't do. Force Screen on the other hand only lasts 1min/level. Meaning you either have to know that there's a fight about to start and cast it slightly in advance (something that doesn't happen in my games too often), or you have to cast it during combat. And frankly I'd much rather spend my time in combat casting offensive spells. Each round you spend buffing yourself is a round you aren't weakening the enemy. I'd rather have the majority of my defenses up all the time.



> Plus for any character class that does not have any armor/shield feats, a Mithral Chain Shirt is the best armor that character can get without sacrificing to hit.  Once you get to Mithral Scalemail or heavier armor, a character without those feats will be taking a armor check penalty to hit.



A great many psionicist builds won't care about penalties to hit; its not exactly a class designed to wade into combat, and you don't even have to take many powers with ranged touch attacks.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 22, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> Well, given that you can't seem to hold a discussion with even a minimum of politeness, I'll just remove myself from the discussion -- [gone]




Well, your first response to me denigrated my first post by saying how my example was unusual and not helpful and questioning how viable it was without illustrating a better solution. Instead, you gave a very poor counter example that psions without armor feats should waste their money on low powered armor.

Your second response to me called me snippy.

Your third response also called me snippy although the only thing I did was repeat your own snippy words back at you.

And your fourth response here is calling me impolite.

Again, pot calling the kettle black two? Look in the mirror sport before pointing the finger at others. You want to pretend that you didn't start this tete a tete in the first place by calling me snippy, you just go right ahead and pretend. But, this repeatedly acting like you are a victim when you pulled out your knife first is lame.

On the other hand, I'll drop it if you drop it.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 22, 2005)

Diirk said:
			
		

> I keep most stuff on my pack horse. In a pinch tho, survival can replace the trail rations, Create Water the waterskin and a blanket instead of a bedroll.




Difficult to take your pack horse indoors.



			
				Diirk said:
			
		

> You can do a few things to bring this weight down, including replacing the greatsword (which you aren't proficient with, anyway) with a shortspear. Or a quarterstaff if for some reason your 10 str psion *really* needs a two handed weapon.




Actually, she is proficient with the Greatsword. She took the proficiency at level one. However, she could not afford a Greatsword until level two.   

Plus again, my psion has a 14 Str, not a 10 Str.

But why should she fight with an inferior one handed weapon when she  can use Force Screen for her shield bonus and fight with a Greatsword?



			
				Diirk said:
			
		

> If you get desperate there's always a weightless bag for your requirements. However even without, I think most people could make do with 43 pounds if they so desired.




Actually, the party just bought a Heward's Handy Haversack and my psion is carrying it. Even with most of her equipment in it, she is STILL carrying around 30 pounds. 15 more pounds for armor and shield would put her in medium encumbrance if she picks up anything weighing 9 pounds or more.

I suspect that most psions have strength lower than 14 and it would be even worse for them.



			
				Diirk said:
			
		

> 2000gp for the initial armour/shield (+5 ac), then +2000 for 2 more ac, +6000 for another 2, etc. Its certainly a tradeoff, it depends on if you have powers you'd rather take than inertial armour/forcescreen or not. If you have the powers to spend I can see why many characters would prefer Inertial Armour to mithril chain; heck it even scales, something mage armour doesn't do. Force Screen on the other hand only lasts 1min/level. Meaning you either have to know that there's a fight about to start and cast it slightly in advance (something that doesn't happen in my games too often), or you have to cast it during combat. And frankly I'd much rather spend my time in combat casting offensive spells. Each round you spend buffing yourself is a round you aren't weakening the enemy. I'd rather have the majority of my defenses up all the time.




I typically only spend round one buffing her (if even then) since Inertial Armor and Thicken Skin tend to be up before we get into combat (not always, but often). Or, another good tactic is to buff while moving towards the enemy.

Plus, you can "not weaken the enemy" by rolling a 2 or your to hit. Just because you make an offensive attempt does not mean that you will be succesful.



			
				Diirk said:
			
		

> A great many psionicist builds won't care about penalties to hit; its not exactly a class designed to wade into combat, and you don't even have to take many powers with ranged touch attacks.




It's an excellent class to wade into combat, especially if you are an Egoist. My character does it all of the time.

For example, my psion did Metamorphosis as a Troll and held off a Vrock all by herself at 7th level while the rest of the PCs took out the two dozen other lesser demons attacking us. Even when it tried to Teleport and fight other PCs instead, all I had to do was go over and engage it some more while the rest of the PCs regrouped.


Also, I disagree with you on the ranged touch attack issue. Most psionicist builds will minimally rely on some ranged touch attacks merely because so many psionic offensive powers are designed that way and have a higher chance of success if used. And those types of attacks do not succeed if they do not hit. I don't know of any character (Wizard, Sorcerer, or Psion) with a +1/2 BAB that wants a penalty to hit if he uses touch attacks or ranged touch attacks. Doing that is counter productive.


----------



## Scion (May 22, 2005)

Wow.. some of this talk is just weird.

I'd like to get a few things off of my chest 

First of all, the number of encounters a day is set for the whole system and needs to be enforced in one way or another otherwise everything falls down. Yes, _everything_.

Note though, you dont have to have them like that every day, you dont even have to make them all combat, all you have to do is have the threat of it being possible and have it happen now and then.

Short days happen, long days happen, but everyone should plan on each day potentially being a long day.

Anything that expends any amount of resources is some sort of encounter. Enough smaller ones equals a bigger one. If everytime your party comes across a trap they have to use up a spell or an item or the party rogue gets blasted on accident or something else this takes up a bit of the parties resources. Every day that matters (yes, some days there may be zero things going on, like in town resting) each little thing takes out a little bit of what the party can do. This all matters and is what the system is based on.

If you are playing in a game that only ever has one or two challenges on game days that matter and it doesnt disrupt things likely there is something else going on because that type of thing tends to *heavily* favor certain builds over others. Just like having nothing but long day heavily favors other builds. Using the recomended parts of the system tends to balance each of the builds the best.

Second, thanees picture graph is pretty much always used in a way that misrepresents any actual campaign. It only really matters in an arena system with no buff time and only one thing to do a day. On anything else, and even sometimes in the arena, it falls flat to show anything useful.

There is a lot more time out of combat than in combat in a given day. Given that many of the spells and powers have had their durations destroyed in 3.5 this means that a lot of those lower level slots must be used each challenge to help with various aspects. This means that the spellcaster can use a bunch of lower slots to get things done and still have all of that upper tier blasting power. However, each and every power manifested cuts into the top of the psions powers per day.

This is all well and good, it is part of the tradeoff, but it also makes the psion pretty weak in a lot of ways. They are strong in others however, tradeoffs.

Useing lower level spells to fix various problems, shore up various weaknesses, or just blow off at random for fun barely touches the true ability of the casters. The same cannot be truthfully said for the psion. Each time he puts up a power of any sort for any reason it cuts into his strengths.

Given the extremely short duration of most things in 3.5 this is even more prominent.

Putting up even basic defenses for a fight can seriously impare how much a psion can do for the day, especially if they want to augment any of those defenses. Going for maximum defense and maximum offense means that the psion will last about 1 battle at best, and he wont really be all that much better than any other caster. Better yes, but not overwhelmingly better.


As for nails post though.. 



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Here are my concerns, born out in play (using 3.5e):
> 
> (1)Psions can manifest too many high (or highest) level powers.
> (2)In order to challenge the psion, you must have 2-4 combats per day (and one of those encounters had better include someone with a Dispel Magic/Psionics).
> ...




(1) completely subjective and not useful in any fashion. Especially given the tradeoff that useing more high level powers means having little to no low level powers for other tasks. Saying that they have 'too many' just doesnt say anything, one could say the same thing about sorcs, wizards, or even fighters and it would mean just as much.

(2) In order to make the system work for any class made so far this has to be done. Not doing so causes lots of other problems. The problem here is not the psion, it is with people not playing the system properly and creating a problem themselves. Dispel magic is no more required for psions than any other class. Replace psion in your sentence with nearly any other class and the same situation happens. Fighter is about the only one immune to this, but not for every fighter build, and they are generally the best at 'lots' of combats in a day anyway, they are on the other side of the coin, too many fights and only the fighter will be in any useful shape. The last bit of course changes based on so many factors it is insane, overall balance concerns favor having about 4 encounters of an appropriate level in a given game day that matters. Throw that away and throw away all of the rule books.

(3) Completely false. Given that the default is transparency there is zero difference. Sometimes you get to check through the psionics book for equipment instead of the dmg, but the same could be said for so many different books it is silly. Many of the items in the psionics book were made overly weak for this reason. Sad when even after going for the weaker side of balanced people still bash them.

(4) Again completely false, these things simply do not apply. Each system works under different base principles for what these represent. Personally I find the psionics system overall more balanced in this case. Too many sacred cows being held over for no reason on the magic side. Hence why there are so many things that get rid of them. Just because there are a series of incredibly weak and nearly worthless feats that should be done in a better way for casters does not mean that psionics is overpowered or broken or even wrong. The magic system should be fixed, not break everything else.

(5) This is an odd statement given how many different spells are broken in the current system and yet people still use magic. There are many, many more troublesome spells than troublesome powers. As for no 'non-psionic counters', what does that even mean? Most things on both sides have some sort of parallel, even if they arent perfect. If anything the psionic side comes out worse nearly every time: paying exp each time instead of gp for a focus once and more limited in scope (dispel psionics cannot counterspell nor remove curses). What powers cannot be defended against useing magic? After that, tell me how many spells cannot be defended against useing psionics. Then, how many of each cannot be defended against back and forth through the divine chain. 


The 3.5 psionics book has a few problems of course, but they are minor compared with the spellcasting problems currently. Psionics is the most balanced version of magic yet. Hopefully each will continue to be improved in the future!


As for the armor issue, some psions will wear armor, others wont. Trading one resource for another, that is all. Depending on what your final goal is one will be better than the other. I had a psion decked out in fullplate and weilding a large shield. He was well into medium load and had a massive penalty, but that wasnt the point, he was just the tincan who walked around pretending he was some incredibly inept knight who sometimes had things happen to help him out and win. It was fun, although perhaps not fully optimized 

Just for future reference, I think everyone on this thread should read these:

Myth 1 
Myth 2 

It will take several days, but it should help show a few different view points. While I dont agree with everything on there it is at least a place to start.

Have a good one all


----------



## Diirk (May 22, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Difficult to take your pack horse indoors.



Thats ok, most of your equipment you won't need on hand most of the time anyway.




> Actually, she is proficient with the Greatsword. She took the proficiency at level one. However, she could not afford a Greatsword until level two.
> 
> Plus again, my psion has a 14 Str, not a 10 Str.
> 
> But why should she fight with an inferior one handed weapon when she  can use Force Screen for her shield bonus and fight with a Greatsword?



The 10 str came from your example psion who was encumbered with the necessities yet was still carrying a greatsword for some reason. I was talking generalities, not your specific psion who obviously did take the feat (which I'd suggest would not be the norm) and does have a higher strength. Obviously armour isn't the best choice for all situations, but it is a valid choice that has a number of advantages for some character designs. 



> Actually, the party just bought a Heward's Handy Haversack and my psion is carrying it. Even with most of her equipment in it, she is STILL carrying around 30 pounds. 15 more pounds for armor and shield would put her in medium encumbrance if she picks up anything weighing 9 pounds or more.
> 
> I suspect that most psions have strength lower than 14 and it would be even worse for them.



I suppose it depends on how much you feel you need to carry around...



> I typically only spend round one buffing her (if even then) since Inertial Armor and Thicken Skin tend to be up before we get into combat (not always, but often). Or, another good tactic is to buff while moving towards the enemy.
> 
> Plus, you can "not weaken the enemy" by rolling a 2 or your to hit. Just because you make an offensive attempt does not mean that you will be succesful.



I prefer not to spend any rounds buffing if I can help it. Inertial Armour and the like are fine at 1hr/level and admittedly given that you can augment it as opposed to say mage armour makes it compare favourably to armour, its just things like force screen I tend to dislike. While you say that casting it as you move towards the enemy is a good tactic, I find it to be a much better tactic to keep more of a distance and cast offensive spells instead.

And why would I be rolling a 2 for my 'to hit' on powers such as energy burst, inflict pain?



> It's an excellent class to wade into combat, especially if you are an Egoist. My character does it all of the time.
> 
> For example, my psion did Metamorphosis as a Troll and held off a Vrock all by herself at 7th level while the rest of the PCs took out the two dozen other lesser demons attacking us. Even when it tried to Teleport and fight other PCs instead, all I had to do was go over and engage it some more while the rest of the PCs regrouped.
> 
> Also, I disagree with you on the ranged touch attack issue. Most psionicist builds will minimally rely on some ranged touch attacks merely because so many psionic offensive powers are designed that way and have a higher chance of success if used. And those types of attacks do not succeed if they do not hit. I don't know of any character (Wizard, Sorcerer, or Psion) with a +1/2 BAB that wants a penalty to hit if he uses touch attacks or ranged touch attacks. Doing that is counter productive.



What I'm hearing is 'my character does it this way so there's no other good way to do it'. Some situations people will find it better to pick armour rather than sacrifice powers known to inertial armour/force screen. Other situations people will find it better to stick with the powers. I don't really see how you can disagree with that, given the number of possible builds out there.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 22, 2005)

Diirk said:
			
		

> And why would I be rolling a 2 for my 'to hit' on powers such as energy burst, inflict pain?




The point is that offensive powers, just like melee and missile attacks, are not always successful.

You can waste 7 PP with an Energy Burst just as readily as wasting a sword swing. Spell resistance or immunity to that energy type or even just resistance to that energy type, a bad dice roll, and a made saving throw could result in virtually no effect.

Ditto for Inflict Pain.

Offense is not always better than defense. In fact, it is often the opposite.



			
				Diirk said:
			
		

> What I'm hearing is 'my character does it this way so there's no other good way to do it'. Some situations people will find it better to pick armour rather than sacrifice powers known to inertial armour/force screen. Other situations people will find it better to stick with the powers. I don't really see how you can disagree with that, given the number of possible builds out there.




Wearing armor and/or being encumbered without the armor feats limits the success of a psion.

Such a character will have penalties for:

1) offensive touch powers
2) offensive ranged touch powers
3) normal missile attacks
4) normal melee attacks
5) movement
6) physical skills

unless he wears extremely light armor in which case with D4 hit points and low AC, he will have limited survival chances.


There are five main differences between Psions and Wizards/Sorcerers:

1) Psions can manifest more "highest augmented powers" per day.

2) Psionic powers can be used in some situations that are adverse to arcane spell casting (e.g. areas of Silence, in grapples, etc.).

3) Nearly 80% of psionic powers have a range of Close or less. Psions are close range specialists. Arcane spells average a longer range.

4) Arcane spells auto-scale, psionic powers require more PP to scale.

5) Psions have virtually no "minimize me from being targeted at all" powers. For example, Invisibility, Greater Invisibility or Mirror Images. Psions are almost always visible and targetable on the field.


A lot of people focus on #1 and #2 and totally forget about #3, #4, and #5. Yes, psions can be very powerful: for very short periods of time. But, they are vulnerable all of the time in combat.

And that is why it is critical for a successful psion who regularly gets into combat to have some form of martial capability, be that melee or missiles. Psions only have D4 hit points and sooner or later, they will die if they cannot still fight when low on PP while the other PCs are still relatively fresh.

And that is precisely why the "armor without the armor feats" scenario is so lousy. Such a build hampers a psion's already limited (+1/2 BAB) melee/missile capability even more by either giving him a penalty to hit or limiting him to very light armor.

Armor with the armor feats (i.e. either taking the feats directly or taking a class or prestige class that gives them) is ok, but still not great. It allows for expansion of armor without limiting a psion's combat capability.

Without the armor feats, it's not a matter of it being 'my character does it this way so there's no other good way to do it'. It's a matter of survival.


If you ever play a Psion, you will discover this. You cannot play a Psion like a Wizard or Sorcerer and just blast away at max PP every round. The 8th level Kineticist Psion with 18 Int, armor and no armor feats who does 9 fully augmented Energy powers in a day for an average of 36 points each will suddenly realize that the 8th level blaster Sorcerer with 18 Cha might only get 4 of his highest (i.e. 4th) level spells, but that's still 10 Fireball spells with an average of 28 points each. The Kineticist did 16% more damage in 9 rounds than the Sorcerer did in 10 rounds, but the Kineticist is totally out of PP whereas the Sorcerer still has 7 first level spells and 7 second level spells to go.

In this example, the Psion gets 9 max PP powers whereas the Sorcerer gets 24 spells (not counting zeroth level spells). That's more than 2 1/2 times as many active rounds of combat.

The Psion will die if he does this. Hence, he has to conserve. And if he is conserving, he isn't using heavy PP every round. That is the opposite of conserving.

The only alternative to using PP is to use a weapon. If your psion does not use one, he will either stand to the side being worthless, or he will blow through his PP in one or two combats each day and be worthless in combats #3 onwards.

Either way, he will die sooner or later with such a strategy unless the DM always limits it to a max of 2 combats per day.


----------



## Diirk (May 22, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The point is that offensive powers, just like melee and missile attacks, are not always successful.
> 
> You can waste 7 PP with an Energy Burst just as readily as wasting a sword swing. Spell resistance or immunity to that energy type or even just resistance to that energy type, a bad dice roll, and a made saving throw could result in virtually no effect.



Here's a good idea, lets do nothing but cast defensive powers in combat because 'my offensive ones might not work'. Guess what? Defensive powers won't always work either. Sometimes you'll get hit anyway, sometimes the enemy will simply not focus on you. Either way, no matter what you do in combat, there's a chance that some of your actions will turn out ineffective. That doesn't mean it wasn't worth a shot, tho.


As to the rest of what you posted... well, I don't agree with you, and clearly alot of other people don't either, because I see psions played with armour all the time. 

I can't believe you just posted 'your psion will die if you don't play him like I play mine'. Talk about a closed mind, heh.


----------



## DreamChaser (May 22, 2005)

okay.  I again state my definition of balance.

this much debate means it is too close to call.  people stick to their own sides and refuse to see/acknowledge the other side.

and this much pettiness means that there are a bunch of immature people who can't agree to disagree.  it is just as immature to refuse to drop a point being "argued" by an immature person as it is to be immature.  part of maturity is choosing your battles.

but such is the way of things on a D&D board I guess.

DC 

(who is well aware that some of that pettiness will now be directed toward him for daring to point it out to all parties involved; feel free.)


----------



## the Jester (May 22, 2005)

One thing I haven't noticed anyone address in this discussion is the fact that psions can tweak their blasting powers for best effect.   

A sorcerer who knows _fireball_ and encounters a fire elemental is screwed; a psion just sets phasers on cold.

I think this is a significant advantage.


----------



## Thanee (May 22, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Myth 1
> Myth 2
> 
> It will take several days, but it should help show a few different view points. While I dont agree with everything on there it is at least a place to start.




Yeah, I also wouldn't agree with that (speaking of the initial post of those threads only, I really don't want to read through dozens of pages of that silliness, if there are some actually reasonable posts, maybe somone can link to them?).

The format of "Myth: This is broken" and then "Answer: No it's not, because you can fix it by changing it this way" is quite convincing, indeed... LOL

Then adding completely silly arguments, like "sorcerers have more spells known than psions", makes it good for a laugh but little else. Sure, if you also think _Acid Splash_ is about the same power level as _Meteor Storm_, than you can probably say it's like that. 

And not to forget, that being able to choose between four energy types on the fly instead of just one is not better, because there are monsters out there, which resist each of them, so the obvious conclusion is, that you always choose the wrong one. Yep, then it's not an advantage at all. I can see that. 

Oh, and did you know, that _Energy Missile_'s advantage of selectively targeting up to 5 targets for full damage each is balanced by the targets having to be within 15 ft.? No, really! I guess it balances the +1 DC per +1 PP on the fly as well. 

Another nice one is, that fighters are pretty powerful with 20 combat encounters in a day (obviously), and because of that, it's balanced that psions are overpowered with 2 combat encounters a day. Because, yeah, 20 and 2 is about equally likely. 

But thanks for the laugh, been a while since I saw them. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (May 22, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> One thing I haven't noticed anyone address in this discussion is the fact that psions can tweak their blasting powers for best effect.
> 
> A sorcerer who knows _fireball_ and encounters a fire elemental is screwed; a psion just sets phasers on cold.
> 
> I think this is a significant advantage.




Go do the research.

Look through the various monster manuals and find out which percentage of creatures have Immunity from Fire.

Then, find out which percentage of creatures have Resistance to Fire.


This comes into play most often with spellcasters, not monsters.

And, it is one advantage psions have. Just like Clerics can Spontaneously Cure.

Do you find that Spontaneously Curing is a significant advantage that breaks the class as well? If not, why not?

The advantage is similar. You attack me. I am nearly dead. Nope, my ally Cleric heals me back up and all or most or some of the damage you did was negated.

The best Energy Selection normally does is an additional 10 points of damage. Not 10 more points of damage than typically done, just 10 more points than if a different energy type was picked. And, it only does an extra 10 points per target if all of the targets have a resistance to a more standard type of energy (e.g. fire).

But, Spontaneously Curing often heals a LOT more than 10 extra points of damage. Spontaneously picking a good energy type often does 10 extra points (sometimes slightly more on average if it is a bad type of saving throw for the target).


This is one ability that I think people vastly overrate. The power to select the saving throw type for Energy powers is often more useful than the power to select the Energy Type.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 22, 2005)

Diirk said:
			
		

> Here's a good idea, lets do nothing but cast defensive powers in combat because 'my offensive ones might not work'. Guess what? Defensive powers won't always work either. Sometimes you'll get hit anyway, sometimes the enemy will simply not focus on you. Either way, no matter what you do in combat, there's a chance that some of your actions will turn out ineffective. That doesn't mean it wasn't worth a shot, tho.




I do not disagree with this. Balance and moderation in all things.

You were making a case that doing ANY buffing in a combat is inferior. That is incorrect.

Buffing has its place, just like attacking, flanking, healing, and a lot of other actions in combat.

I also stated that my psion generally often does only one buff per combat, but you stated that even this was too much.

I disagree.

Let me give you a more reasonable "good idea". Let's have you pick whatever 8th level class you want to pick and I'll take my 8th level psion and you only attack while I attack or buff or heal myself or do whatever is appropriate to the situation and then let's see who wins the combat.

Balance and moderation in all things Diirk. Not all offensive and not all defense.



			
				Diirk said:
			
		

> As to the rest of what you posted... well, I don't agree with you, and clearly alot of other people don't either, because I see psions played with armour all the time.




Do the psions you see played with armor "all the time" have the armor feats? In order for your statement here to be relevant to the conversation, it has to apply to psions who wear heavier armors and who do not have the feats.

What powers do they have? What feats?

It's ok to pretend to know what you are talking about, but generalities like "I see psions played with armour all the time" indicate that you do not actually play them yourself and hence are basing your experiences off of what you read, not what you yourself have done.



			
				Diirk said:
			
		

> I can't believe you just posted 'your psion will die if you don't play him like I play mine'. Talk about a closed mind, heh.




I never said that. That is your own spin on what I said.

I said that a psion that repeatedly blows through their PP in one or two combats and has no martial capability whatsoever will die unless the DM limits it to two combats per day.

Try to at least be somewhat accurate in what you post, otherwise, you lose a lot of credibility around here. Read what people actually write, not what you at first glance think they write. If you do not read what people write and you disagree with them, of course you will think that they have a closed mind. But, the communication problem is not necessarily with the person who disagrees with you.


----------



## Scion (May 22, 2005)

yet again thanee your problem is misinterpreting and misrepresenting of the information given.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, I also wouldn't agree with that (speaking of the initial post of those threads only, I really don't want to read through dozens of pages of that silliness, if there are some actually reasonable posts, maybe somone can link to them?).




You will not read through discussions and so you dismiss them as silly? Read them.

To anyone else, I would suggest reading as you have time if you feel that there are balance issues. There are a lot of different things discussed to one degree or another. It takes a lot of time but it is worth it.

Plus, even if you still feel that they are not balanced at least you will have a better idea of what you have problems with.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> The format of "Myth: This is broken" and then "Answer: No it's not, because you can fix it by changing it this way" is quite convincing, indeed...




So, you havent actually even read the first post and yet you feel comfortable poking fun at it? Nice of you.

While the format is a bit off for the most part it is all right. There are a few that say things are all right, explain why, and then say if you are still having problems with them there are some easy changes to nerf it without having to remove it. We could only be so lucky if magic had the same thing, considering the huge number of broken spells.




			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Then adding completely silly arguments, like "sorcerers have more spells known than psions", makes it good for a laugh but little else. Sure, if you also think _Acid Splash_ is about the same power level as _Meteor Storm_, than you can probably say it's like that.




Misrepresentation.

Hopefully others will actually read the arguements instead of focusing on specific lines taken out of context and bashed in an offhand manner.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> And not to forget, that being able to choose between four energy types on the fly instead of just one is not better, because there are monsters out there, which resist each of them, so the obvious conclusion is, that you always choose the wrong one. Yep, then it's not an advantage at all. I can see that.




Misrepresentation again.

Look, everyone knows that being able to choose elemental types is better than the arcane direct damage spells for the most part (yes, there are still arcane damage spells which are better). All this does is make direct damage more viable at higher levels. Arcane direct damage tends to suck right around level 7 or so and just gets worse from there on (except for a couple of notable examples).

Psions are better at blasting than the arcane types. Good. Arcane direct damage sucks and tends to be nonviable anyway.

Why is it that everytime psions are weaker than the arcane/divine counterparts it is ignored and the strengths are called out because, 'others cant do that as well!' Guess what, each type of magic has strengths and weaknesses. Mages typcially cant cure very well, psions can cure a little bit but not great, divine casters can heal incredibly well. Divine blasting spells and arcane blasting spells run the gambit from completely useless up to incredibly powerful, as do the psions. Typically the psions are more powerful because of versitility and not much else, but even they fall behind some of the arcane ones out there.

so, to recap, being able to change on the fly is nice yes, but it is only making it viable at higher levels. Just because someone sucks at direct damage doesnt mean everyone has to suck at it, just like because someone sucks at healing spells doesnt mean everyone has to suck at them.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Oh, and did you know, that _Energy Missile_'s advantage of selectively targeting up to 5 targets for full damage each is balanced by the targets having to be within 15 ft.? No, really! I guess it balances the +1 DC per +1 PP on the fly as well.




In order to get the dc boost you either have to pick the proper specialization or spend a feat. The creatures have to be within 15' of one another so if you are even able to hit 2 you are doing pretty well most of the time. If you are going to assume that you can hit 5 with it then I will assume you can hit 35 with fireball type spells, which is better at the same effective expenditure?

Still, at high levels you have a specialist power that has a 'very' hard to beat dc. Of course, it is only damage, and can still be saved against, and can be resisted/SR'd. Even with a failed save and using the d6+1 damage version and no resistance it averages out to be less than a full attack from a well specced fighter type will do to a single target. Ouch for the psion, even his more powerful direct damage is still just contributing and not ruling the day.

There are other mitigating factors for both side of that fighter type and psion doing damage, but the overall picture is there. People can say one or the other comes out ahead depending on certain circumstances, but that is part of the point, each has their own nitch but they both do roughly the same thing.

To restate though, energy missile is a specialist power so you choose to give up 5 other lists of powers or spend a feat to get it. That is a big drawback right there. Even then you get a power which the dc runs from being exactly the same to up to several points higher if you dump enough resources into it. Even then though it still gets a save (although a difficult to make save), still gets cut by resistances, might be killed by something that kills low level spells (spell turning anyone? globes?), hit by SR, and then has to drill through creatures hp who, when the save is getting really nice, can many hundreds from con alone.

But, it is better than a normal damage spell. Good, it took giving up other choices to get it. It 'should' be more powerful then.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Another nice one is, that fighters are pretty powerful with 20 combat encounters in a day (obviously), and because of that, it's balanced that psions are overpowered with 2 combat encounters a day. Because, yeah, 20 and 2 is about equally likely.




I'd really love to believe that you are joking, but somehow I just cant see how that could be the case. if you wish to really contribute to such a subject please actually read the arguements given in those two threads. It will take some time, and not all of it is done incredibly well, but at least they have tried.

Hopefully some of my reemphasis on points that you have chosen to ignore will help others.

Also hopefully the above didnt come off too harsh. It is frustrating to put up something and then have someone read a couple of paragraphs out of hundreds of pages, pick out only a few specific lines, and then basically lie about it using a couple of lines out of context. It happens so much and so often elsewhere at least we could try to avoid it in the rules forum. We are all better than that right?


----------



## Pielorinho (May 22, 2005)

*Moderator's Notes*:

This thread is chock full of snark.  My temptation is to close it out of hand, but the subject is interesting, so instead, I'll remind people to avoid snark.  Specifically:
-Avoid telling other people what their motives are.
-Avoid telling other people that they've not read the arguments.
-Avoid expressing your amusement with the weakness of other people's arguments.
-Avoid giving your opinion of the other person's manners, intelligence, work ethic, fashion sense, or favorite sports team.  Address the argument, not the person.

If someone breaks these rules, and tells you that your argument is hilariously weak and your mother dresses you funny, please report their post; do not respond in kind.

Thanks!
Daniel


----------



## Lord Pendragon (May 22, 2005)

Scion, I don't have enough experience with psions to contribute directly to the discussion, but some of your arguments seem evasive at best.  For instance, you can't really argue that a psion's ability to outblast a sorcerer is't broken because sorcerers' blasting ability sucks.  It's evasive.  Instead of addressing the fact that psions are much better blasters than sorcerers, and the imbalance inherent in that statement, you're instead trying to convince the reader to ignore the imbalance because "it just makes high-level blasting viable."

If something's not viable for the sorcerer, but very viable for the psion, then that's a significant advantage for the psion.  I'd like to see you addressing the arguments, rather than merely trying to sleight-of-hand them out of sight.  A lot of your arguments in your first post in this thread have a similar feel.

Incidentally, I think it's a bit unrealistic to link to a 100+ post thread and expect anyone to read through the whole thing.  The average board-surfer simply doesn't have the time or inclination for such a thing.  If there are points in there you think are valid, you're better off cutting and pasting, or re-stating them here.


----------



## Scion (May 22, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> For instance, you can't really argue that a psion's ability to outblast a sorcerer is't broken because sorcerers' blasting ability sucks.  It's evasive.  Instead of addressing the fact that psions are much better blasters than sorcerers, and the imbalance inherent in that statement, you're instead trying to convince the reader to ignore the imbalance because "it just makes high-level blasting viable."




I posted two links to a few posts on the very first page that talk about it along with stating that con contributes a massive number of hp and that saves are high at high levels, SR is fairly common in monsters, resistances and immunities are all commonplace.

Now, all of that put together easily shows that elemental blasting with spells will tend to have some problems. Put with that the elemental problem of arcane types and then the limited damage that they do I think it'd pretty clear that blasting wouldnt be as useful. Hence why I said all of this in several different ways in the thread. A couple of times from the side and a couple of times directly.

It isnt evasive to list off a host of problems and say, 'this is why it has problems'. How much more direct would you like?

Also, psions are not even hugely above other casters for direct damage, they merely have a few advantages. Type change (but still elemental) and sometimes some dc (though only very, very rarely). They make something that is not terribly viable and make it better. Good for them.

There is no sleight of hand going on. It was all stated clearly either in my post or in the very first post of each of those two threads.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I think it's a bit unrealistic to link to a 100+ post thread and expect anyone to read through the whole thing.  The average board-surfer simply doesn't have the time or inclination for such a thing.  If there are points in there you think are valid, you're better off cutting and pasting, or re-stating them here.




If someone wants to bash things and come off as an expert then they should do at least a minimum of reading on the subject in order to be credible.

The very first post in each of those threads, while some could have been written better, are very well done and address most of the points brought up in this thread directly.

Asking someone who wants to know to read a few posts and if they are still confused to read more seems more than reasonable. Asking people to not lie also seems reasonable.

All in all, I could copy and paste the first couple of posts here, but linking people to the actual source which is done in a very nice formating way seems better. Giving credit where credit is due.


Eh, this subject is always frustrating in that way, people will use the magic system which has more sacred cows and faults without blinking an eye but trying to use a system which was forced to be put into a similar setup to get more standing and is better balanced overall (although purposefully designed a bit weak in many areas) is shot down with half truths, exagerations, misunderstanding, or blatant lies.

Others have stated these sorts of things in a better worded way, my strengths lie in other areas. Perhaps later I'll be able to copy and paste some good arguements made by others in various threads.

The biggest problem is that most of the other peoples comments are so nebulous as to not really have a point where one can say, 'but look here!'. Things like nails, 'they can use too many high level powers a day'. It doesnt have any meaning, completely subjective. Yet, when I say that creatures have too many hp to have blasting work very well normally that is considered to be 'evasive'? Very confusing. The first was so incredibly nebulous and subjective there is nothing that can be said about it directly, the second works on something directly in the system.

How about this quote then? At least it will say something in a better fashion than I can.. and there are tons more floating around in those two links, right at the beginning.



> While psions are in essence a spontaneous caster, there are not prepared casters when it comes to psionics, thus the psion is better compared to a wizard. Not counting 0th level spells, a wizard's spells per day converted into the equivalent power point cost he runs pretty much parallel with a psion for casting longevity. A sorcerer however runs well above the per day castings/mainfestings of those two, ending with about 200 equivalent power points (around 90 spell levels) ahead of both the psion and wizard. This is why most people here believe the wizard is a much better comparison than the psion (and if you ever play a psion, you will quickly find out how much power point conservation matters).
> 
> If you insist on comparing the psion to the sorcerer, then lets get a few points straight before we start.
> 
> ...


----------



## Thanee (May 22, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> So, you havent actually even read the first post and yet you feel comfortable poking fun at it? Nice of you.




"No, it's definitely not overpowered!!!"
"But if you still think it is, then why don't you do it that way, might work out better..." 

C'mon! 



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Misrepresentation.






> The Psion only stays slightly ahead of the Sorcerer until later levels, when the Sorcerer has more spells known than the Psion has powers known.




This is completely ridiculous (as has been proven multiple times already).

Only by adding up all spells known (without value) and comparing that number to all powers known (again without value) you can come to that conclusion. And that means effectively, that _Acid Splash_ equals _Meteor Swarm_, because the spells known are worth the same. Completely pointless. So there's really no misinterpretation there (what's to misunderstand about that, anyways?), it's just the conclusion that follows that "argument" (if you can even call it that).

It's just one of numerous examples.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Look, everyone knows that being able to choose elemental types is better than the arcane direct damage spells for the most part.




Ah, I guess that's why it is listed as a myth.

I suppose the poster of said thread has not yet found this rather obvious truth. 

There goes another bit of that person's credibility...



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> To restate though, energy missile is a specialist power so you choose to give up 5 other lists of powers or spend a feat to get it. That is a big drawback right there.




Yes, absolutely!

That doesn't make a reason for it to be *vastly* stronger than any other compareable spell/power, however.

The discipline lists are a disadvantage for sure, but power level is still power level and completely independant from them.



> Even then you get a power which the dc runs from being exactly the same to up to several points higher if you dump enough resources into it. Even then though it still gets a save (although a difficult to make save), ...








> ...still gets cut by resistances, ...




Don't forget the choice of four elements. Spontaneous, too.



> ...might be killed by something that kills low level spells (spell turning anyone? globes?), ...




Have you read my post about the gloves above?
I claim that globes hinder sorcerers more than psions! And I'm fairly sure about that, too. 



> ...hit by SR, and then has to drill through creatures hp who, when the save is getting really nice, can many hundreds from con alone.




So?

Next thing you say is, that _Meteor Swarm_ should be a 1st level spell?

See, if blast spells don't work in your game, that alone doesn't make them bad.
They work rather well in a lot of game, I can assure you. 



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> I'd really love to believe that you are joking, but somehow I just cant see how that could be the case.




Only partially. 



> if you wish to really contribute to such a subject please actually read the arguements given in those two threads.




Hey, that was an *actual* argument from that thread... a rather funny one, too! 



> That, or they play to a Psionic's strength, one encounter per day, and claim it is broken. How broken would a fighter or warlock be if a party had 20 encounters per day?




See? That's the argument against why a psion's ability to unload their arsenal faster is not a problem, since a fighter or warlock is great with 20 encounters a day. 

This line there alone shows, that the poster has not even understood the argument why that is (or rather can be, as it depends on campaign style, of course) a problem.

Also adding up PP equivalent for spell slots is in no way giving an appropriate comparison (as explained in detail above).

It's not my doing, that the arguments in that thread are that silly, really. They simply are.

And most of them are based on stuff like the above.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> It will take some time, and not all of it is done incredibly well, but at least they have tried.




See, since you have read it, it shouldn't be so hard to point out the posts, which are worthwhile in your opinion. I'm surely not going to read all of that stuff. No way! Especially not after such a laughable opening post (not yours, the one with all the "myth" stuff; two actually) with so many glaring errors, that the poster cannot be taken serious. 

Since you can't list any good arguments from there, I guess there are none?



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Also hopefully the above didnt come off too harsh.




No worries. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Scion (May 23, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> "No, it's definitely not overpowered!!!"
> "But if you still think it is, then why don't you do it that way, might work out better..."




They explain why it isnt overpowered and then they say that if you still feel it is too much for whatever reason that there are a few reasonable ways to nerf it instead of having to remove it entirely.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Just like if someone had a problem with cure light wounds healing a full d8+5 for merely a first level spell, if this was a problem in some peoples eyes a reasonable interpretation might be to limit it to d8+1 instead of saying that it doesnt exist in the game or making it second level.

Energy missile is fine, but some people like to freak out without enough cause. Hence the extra blurb. If you feel the need to make fun of them for it then I am sorry you feel that way, there really isnt any need for it and it definately seems overly harsh for you to do.

So no, not overpowered, but if for some reason someone thought that it would be for their games for whatever reason they gave an out without having to remove it.




			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> This is completely ridiculous (as has been proven multiple times already).




Actually, I would say that your position is what has been disproven repeatidly, and that is the problem I am having in coming up with a response to your accusation. Your stance just doesnt make any sense, but I will try to come up with something rational in response.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Only by adding up all spells known (without value) and comparing that number to all powers known (again without value) you can come to that conclusion. And that means effectively, that _Acid Splash_ equals _Meteor Swarm_, because the spells known are worth the same. Completely pointless. So there's really no misinterpretation there (what's to misunderstand about that, anyways?), it's just the conclusion that follows that "argument" (if you can even call it that).




Note that the psion has no zero level powers, they were all either gotten rid of or turned into higher level powers.

So yes, counting detect magic as an actual gain over the psion makes perfect sense. Comparing it to a 9th level spell/power is just trying to confuse the actual issue here.

Saying that one guy has a total of X known spells and another has Y known spells is reasonable. Saying that this is nonsense because it is equating a 9th level power to a 0 level spell is nonsense itself. Each provides extra options of different spells/powers known and so contributes to the whole.

Once again though, detect magic is a 0th level spell, detect psionics is a 1st level power. So yes, it is valid to add in something that can be important.

Also, I didnt say you misunderstood in this case, I said you were misrepresenting. I have just shown how.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Ah, I guess that's why it is listed as a myth.




It is a myth, it is explained why it is not overpowering. Hence being a myth. Exactly.

Although, I believe you are trying to be sarcastic here. Still though, it is a myth because some people jump the gun, not because it is actually damaging. If it was damaging then it wouldnt be a 'myth' it would be something a little harsher.

Still, even then magic has things that win out. Force effects are much, much stronger for arcane and last time i checked force was a much better energy type than any of the others. Also, spells such as Horrid Wilting are insane in what they can do. Given the choice of which is more overpowering to a game: (1) energy missile at 20pp or (2) Horrid Wilting at 15th caster level I would say that the second is, by far.

So, even with this versitility arcane magic still has ways it pulls ahead. That is a part of why it is a 'myth' and not 'fact' about being a problem.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> That doesn't make a reason for it to be *vastly* stronger than any other compareable spell/power, however.




Good thing it isnt 'vastly' stronger then. Most of the the time it is either equal or a few more points of dc, at the very highest level it can be much harder to resist but even then in most cases I'd 'still' rather have horrid wilting.

Being a discipline only power is a huge disadvantage, it means that you cut yourself out of a number of other useful powers. You wanted to fly? too bad, spend a feat. You wanted to use realty revision? never going to happen.

Or you could spend a feat to get it. So, effectively, you have spent one feat to get a bit of a dc boost eventually for one power only. Alternately, the arcane guy could spend a feat to get +1 dc to all of his spells of a whole school, all the time. Tradeoffs.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Have you read my post about the gloves above?
> I claim that globes hinder sorcerers more than psions! And I'm fairly sure about that, too.




You mean your arguement that if the sorc is an exactly the level where he could run into a globe but hasnt quite gotten many spells that can go above it? The one that only works for a single level 'sometimes' and doesnt even apply to any monstrous type opponents? Cool, so for one level there is a problem going the other direction.

Still though, it doesnt even matter to my arguement since there are a 'pile' of things that it has to go through and it is only a single one.

Again, the energy choice simply makes it 'viable' at higher levels. That is one of the myths and discusses ad nauseum. I'll post the paragraphs on here if you like.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> So?




So those are some of the reasons why damage dealing spells are underpowered or, in other words, not very viable at higher levels. constitution by itself ruins a good portion of that plan, the other dozen things on top of it simply diminish it further.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Next thing you say is, that _Meteor Swarm_ should be a 1st level spell?
> 
> See, if blast spells don't work in your game, that alone doesn't make them bad.
> They work rather well in a lot of game, I can assure you.




Meteor swarm is, yet again, your attempt to confuse the issue and has nothing to do with anything here.

But, to run with it anyway, if it only did a max of 5d4 over a much smaller area, then sure, it'd be first level. But then we already have burning hands so what is the point.

If blast spells work well in your game then that is fine, every campaign favors different builds, but I am talking base d&d here. Going by just how things work under the raw what I have said is true.

If you have a lot more humanoid type creatures who use class levels instead of racial stuff and dont get very much equipment (because npcs have less money) then that is a very different type of game than the base. It is of course a viable choice, but discussing a particular instead of the general isnt useful. We could go the other way and discuss games where direct damage spells never have any use period and it would also have no bearing.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Hey, that was an *actual* argument from that thread




But you misquoted so extremely that what you said was a lie. That is the problem.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> See? That's the argument against why a psion's ability to unload their arsenal faster is not a problem, since a fighter or warlock is great with 20 encounters a day.




No, that is different classes having different strengths. One has tons of staying power, the other has to conserve properly or they will burn out on accident.

That is the whole point of having the appropriate number of challenges per day, to balance classes that have limited resources and those that have unlimited resources.

How does one balance such disparity? Do we make every class the same? no, we make a balance point where they each can shine.

It is a delicate balance but a good one.

Remember, there are lots of different kinds of tradeoffs. The psion can go all out and burn out rapidly and be pretty effective, but so can any caster, even the barbarian is similar to this. If one has a problem with a psion because of too few challenges a day then the exact same problem will occur for all of the limited resource characters.

That is what happens when part of the system is taken out of context, things look wrong. Placing it back in context makes the whole picture come into focus.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Also adding up PP equivalent for spell slots is in no way giving an appropriate comparison




It does give something to compare with. Especially over the course of an actual game day. The caster and the psion can use a bunch of lower level spells/powers to get through various problems, or put up defenses, or make attacks.

Knock would be a great example of this. Casting it at higher levels takes up very little of the casters overall resources for heavy hitting, and yet it does cut into what the psion can do, especially after a few manifestations. Totaling up each shows that while the psion does have a lot more flexibility he is way behind in the total actual uses over the course of the day.

Tradeoffs.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> It's not my doing, that the arguments in that thread are that silly, really. They simply are.




Only because you have failed to read them and pay attention. Even the one you tried to paraphrase came off completely wrong. That one example leads me to believe that you dont know anything about the rest of them. After all, if you get that one wrong so badly the others probably arent far behind.

Even simply reading the first couple of posts on the first goes through a lot of the problems in a decent way. There are still a few issues and will continue to be, they arent professional writers, they are just people trying to help.


The myths thread was made for a reason: a lot of people overreact to anything different.

It was made to help show a path through the overreactions and see how everything works together. Some parts of it are better written than others, but that certainly cant be held against it. After all, if people would just use things properly it wouldnt even be needed in the first place, but not everyone has the time to do so. People are on that site all of the time asking about this or that being overpowered and people have explanations. In order to give enough on here I would have to post dozens and dozens of posts worth of information. I'd rather just link to one of the more concise places that has many of them instead of doing that. How can anyone expect one single thread to put all of their mentioned and unmentioned fears to rest? It is merely a place to start and it would be impossible for me to explain the unmentioned ones anyway ;p


I know people wont want to read the whole thread, but at least read the first page with an open mind and trying to see what is going on. Calling it silly out of laziness is just wrong, especially considering the amount of work that went into it.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (May 23, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> I posted two links to a few posts on the very first page that talk about it along with stating that con contributes a massive number of hp and that saves are high at high levels, SR is fairly common in monsters, resistances and immunities are all commonplace.
> 
> Now, all of that put together easily shows that elemental blasting with spells will tend to have some problems. Put with that the elemental problem of arcane types and then the limited damage that they do I think it'd pretty clear that blasting wouldnt be as useful. Hence why I said all of this in several different ways in the thread. A couple of times from the side and a couple of times directly.
> 
> It isnt evasive to list off a host of problems and say, 'this is why it has problems'. How much more direct would you like?



This line of reasoning is evasive because you are still ignoring the balance issue in question (psion vs. other arcane casters) and muddying the waters with another balance issue (the viability of direct damage blasting at high levels.)  The point is that psions can do direct damage blasting much better than the other arcane casters, and the imbalance that fact creates between the psion and the arcanists, _not_ the general viability of direct damage blasting in the high level game.

I don't disagree with you regarding your points on direct damage blasting, but saying that psions make that option viable is completely irrelevant to the question of the thread, namely the balance between the psion and the arcanists.  Address _that_ issue, instead of flipping to an entirely different one.







> Eh, this subject is always frustrating in that way, people will use the magic system which has more sacred cows and faults without blinking an eye but trying to use a system which was forced to be put into a similar setup to get more standing and is better balanced overall (although purposefully designed a bit weak in many areas) is shot down with half truths, exagerations, misunderstanding, or blatant lies.



Again, you're throwing out unrelated issues that distort the issue.  The fact that the traditional magic system may have "sacred cows and faults" is irrelevant when discussing the balance between the psion and the arcanist.







> The biggest problem is that most of the other peoples comments are so nebulous as to not really have a point where one can say, 'but look here!'. Things like nails, 'they can use too many high level powers a day'. It doesnt have any meaning, completely subjective. Yet, when I say that creatures have too many hp to have blasting work very well normally that is considered to be 'evasive'? Very confusing.



Nail's subjective comment bears directly on the balance between psion and arcanist.  Sure, you could argue the subjectivity of the statement as well as counter-claim that it's not true in practice.  But the fact that psions can manifest more high-level powers than arcanists can cast their highest-level spells is a truth worthy of consideration.  Your comment is true too, but it doesn't bear on the discussion at hand.  The general viability of blasting is a side-issue to the central issue that---regardless of its general efficacy, psions are much better blasters than arcanists.







> although purposefully designed a bit weak in many areas



Now this would be relevant.  Instead of discussing the sacred cows in the magic system or the viability of blasting at high levels, why not go through those areas you see the psion as weak, which would go a long way toward showing how the strengths of the class are balanced.


----------



## Scion (May 23, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> This line of reasoning is evasive because you are still ignoring the balance issue in question (psion vs. other arcane casters) and muddying the waters with another balance issue (the viability of direct damage blasting at high levels.)  The point is that psions can do direct damage blasting much better than the other arcane casters, and the imbalance that fact creates between the psion and the arcanists, _not_ the general viability of direct damage blasting in the high level game.




Psions arent arcane casters. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. Just because psions are better at one thing than the arcane guys means nothing.

Also, since people have tried to say that the psions being more powerful makes it overpowered. However, since the arcanes version tends to be too weak anyway it is completely irrelevant if the psions version is stronger.

So why is the difference important? One would have to prove that the psions ability is overpowered on its own,. Like saying that the cleric is too good at healing because the arcane casters heals are so much weaker.

If the psions are stronger than the wizards at direct damage, which is not always the case but often, then explaining about how unreliable arcane damage is seems more than reasonable. In order to make that type of character type work better the psionics went in a slightly different direction.

So, if you feel it is overpowered then show why, but comparing it with arcane damage dealing just doesnt prove anything.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Again, you're throwing out unrelated issues that distort the issue.  The fact that the traditional magic system may have "sacred cows and faults" is irrelevant when discussing the balance between the psion and the arcanist.




As an example, arcane spell failure. It really isnt a balance point, merely a sacred cow. However, people have said that because psions dont have to worry about it then psions are overpowered. But the sacred cow just rears its ugly head.

There are others as well, hence my saying that comparing it directly with something that has a lot of sacred cows is bad in a lot of ways.

The unrelated issues are those that compare things such as the arcane spell failure. Besides, my closeing comments on how people will accept bad things from one source and not even look at others because they assume they will be bad just doesnt make any sense. That is what that comment was about.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Nail's subjective comment bears directly on the balance between psion and arcanist.  Sure, you could argue the subjectivity of the statement as well as counter-claim that it's not true in practice.




That is the problem, it is so subjective that it can be said about anything and the opposite could be said at the same time and it would mean exactly the same.

Being able to have more high level powers per day by giving up all lower level ones is not necissarily bad. The warlock has an unlimited high level spells per day, few people consider him overpowered.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> psions are much better blasters than arcanists.




now prove this is bad. Saying that they are better than people who are poor at it is simply a diversionary tactic from the real issues.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Now this would be relevant.  Instead of discussing the sacred cows in the magic system or the viability of blasting at high levels, why not go through those areas you see the psion as weak, which would go a long way toward showing how the strengths of the class are balanced.




As compared with arcane, divine, or some other piece of meat on the side of the road? At this point I am not even sure what you are really wanting because of how insistant you are on things that dont really matter to the overall balance problem (if psionic blasting is better than arcane blasting) and ignoring things that are.

Still though, I pointed some out in an earlier post. How about the inability of psionic dispel to counterspell or get rid of curses? Detect psionics being a first level power and not a 0th level. No useful invisibility. No illusions (this one is huge, a caster with a few of those type of powers have so many options it is unbelieveable). Only able to self buff effectively. Very poor healing. Metapsionics are incredibly difficult to use, especially if you want for some reason to put on more than one. Psionic focus is a huge problem that requires a great deal of resources on to be useful.

Remember, if a psion wants to have a few buffs up to actually survive a battle that really cuts into the amount of pp's available.. which is really where the number of spells available comes into play. Toss out a bunch of low level ones and suffer no hit to higher level ones at all.


----------



## Jackelope King (May 23, 2005)

> Instead of discussing the sacred cows in the magic system or the viability of blasting at high levels, why not go through those areas you see the psion as weak, which would go a long way toward showing how the strengths of the class are balanced.



I'd be happy to.

Abjuration magicks are probably the closest for a long while between the two types of casting (arcane and psionic), but the presence of absolutely monstrous spells like the high-end _prismatics_ hand the title to traditional casters. And of course, the end-all-be-all of abjuration, _disjunction_, does not even exist for psionic characters.

Calling spells don't even exist for psions. Advantage traditional casters by a long shot. And this is a big advantage. _Gate_ wins games, and a psionic character can never manifest anything with the brokenness of gate.

Creation spells and powers are pretty much dead even. The shaper gets nearly nothing unique here (save a few attack powers on-par with conjuration attack spells), and suffers for a long while from a lack of good wall and creature-comfort spells (like magnificent mansion and secure shelter and the like), but the shaper evens it out at high levels with _genesis_. And note that only a specialist psion (the shaper) can keep up here. Otherwise the title goes to traditional casters.

Healing spells are completely dominated by divine spellcasters. Psions are decent, but they are awful at healing other characters. They enjoy an advantage over arcanists but are nothing compared to divine casters.

Summoning is close. Psions have a highly-customizable _astral construct_ power. It has the advantage of being durable and easily customizable. But traditional casters have creatures which bring magical abilities with them and the list of creatures they can summon grows with every monster suppliment. I'll be generous and call this one another tie, but the inability to ever cast any spells or manifest any powers. Traditional casters have elementals for durable beatsticks. Psions don't have anything to conjure up for magical support.

Teleportation pretty strongly favors traditional spellcasters. Most of the good teleportation powers exist only on the list of a single psion specialist (the nomad) so for anyone other than the nomad to use them, they must spend feats on them. No arcanist needs to spend a feat to learn spells like _teleport_. 5 out of 6 psions do.

Divination is fairly close, but psionic characters have to pay XP to _scry_ (_remote view_) an opponent. Note that psionic characters also lack great powers like _true strike_ (breaking magic item creation since 2001). They have a greater number of utility powers, but the added XP cost of many powers evens it out.

Enchantment is close. Telepaths have a great variety of ways to mess with someone's mind, but many of them are redundant. Strong enchantments (like the _power words_, _irresistable dance_, and the sort) aren't available to psions while the various subtle mind-messing powers aren't available to non-manifesters. Psions also lack large-scale buffing enchantments at low levels, and they rely on enchantments for their _invisibility_ powers (which means a high-level character who will be _mind blanked_ is immune to _cloud mind_, the psionic version of _invisibility_).

Illusions go hands-down to the traditional spellcasters. The versatility of the _shadow_ spells alone would take the cake, but psions cannot match things like _invisibility_. Figments are also hard to come up with. Most of the psion's strength here lies in the telepathy discipline, and these can all be _mind blank_ed out, while most traditional illusions cannot.

Necromancy is miles ahead for traditional spellcasters. No-brainer here. Arcanists are miles ahead of psionic characters in dealing with undead, and divine characters are lightyears ahead.

Buffing transmutations are close. Psions are good at taking care of themselves, but are terrible at buffing others. Further, the crown jewel of transmutation (_shapechange_) comes with a fairly hefty XP cost. Some of the higher-level buffs are good, but they mirror what traditional casters can do anyway.

So call psions the kings of direct damage if you want and say they completely outstrip evocation specialists (despite what the numbers actually say in practice), but then remember that direct damage is one of the weakest options at levels 9 and up (when save-or-dies are much more effective). Even if psions are the best blasters in the game, they still fall short in terms of save or die spells, effective party-wide buffs, transportation, and utility powers. They have their advantage in Black Mage Syndrome, but as has already been pointed out, this advantage comes at a price. They have some truly unique powers at their disposal, but they also lack some key traditional spells. In short, trade-offs which have proven to make the class fairly elegantly balanced.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 23, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Instead of discussing the sacred cows in the magic system or the viability of blasting at high levels, why not go through those areas you see the psion as weak, which would go a long way toward showing how the strengths of the class are balanced.




Certainly.

1) Nearly 80% of psionic powers have a range of Close or less. Psions are close range specialists. Arcane spells average a longer range.

2) Arcane spells auto-scale, psionic powers require more PP to scale.

3) Psions have virtually no "minimize me from being targeted" powers. For example, Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, Mirror Images, Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut, etc. Psions are almost always visible and targetable on the field. Cloud Mind, for example, is a joke. This weakness is huge.

4) Psions get Fly type spells at higher levels. 11th level tends to be the earliest level compared to 5th for Wizards and 6th for Sorcerers (although there are some exceptions) unless they use a feat (which could pull it back to 9th level).

5) Dominate, Psionic is a concentration power for psions (and also a discipline power). Arcane casters get Dominate Person / Monster for one day per level.

6) Catfall drops 10 feet per PP spent from the distance of a fall. Feather Fall drops 60 feet per caster level from the distance of a fall.

7) Arcane casters can cast buff spells on other creatures (e.g. Bull's Strength, Darkvision, etc.). Psions cannot. In fact, psions can manifest very few helpful powers on other creatures.

8) Arcane casters have a defense against Summoned Creatures called Protection From Evil. Arcane casters have a defense against Astral Constructs (and low level Summoned Creatures) called Globe / Lesser Globe of Invulnerability. Psions have no special defense against either summoned creatures or manifested constructs until either Catapsi (which does not help against summoned creatures at all and does not totally protected against manifested creatures either) or Null Psionics Field (i.e. the equivalent of Antimagic Field which arcane casters can get).

9) Globe / Lesser Globe of Invulnerability will protect 100% against low level divine spells, arcane spells, and psionic powers. Psions have no equivalent defensive power.

10) The Shield spells stops Magic Missile spells. Force Screen does not.

11) Expeditious Retreat adds 30 feet to the arcane caster's base movement and last for one minute per level. Burst adds 10 feet for one round. Skate adds 15 feet for one minute per level (but can be cast on others).

12) Psions have no zeroth level powers, hence, all minor powers (like Detect Psionics or Far Hand or My Light) have to be purchased as first level powers and use up the same minimum amount of PP as other first level powers.

13) Psions have very few area effect disabling / movement limiting powers similar to Stinking Cloud, Fog Cloud, Acid Cloud, Web, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc. Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass is very disabling, but it is a 7th level Shaper power and only available at high level.

14) There are very few good Prestige Classes for psions. The SRD Slayer is good and Cerebremancer and Elocator are ok, but the rest suck (IMO, YMMV). There are boatloads of good Prestige Classes for arcane spell casters.

15) This weakness is campaign specific. Most campaigns tend to have more arcane spell casters than psions. Hence on average, there would be more opportunities to acquire arcane specific magical items since there should be more arcane spell casters with access to crafting feats. Minimally, all Wizards get Scribe Scroll, so minimally there should be more opportunities to acquire Scrolls than there are Power Stones. Effectively, if a psion wants a psionic item, he most often will have to craft it himself.

16) Sorcerers can swap out lower level less useful spells every other level. Psions have a more potent way to do this, Psychic Reformation, but it costs XP and uses up a power slot. It is not free like the more minor ability is for a Sorcerer.

17) Wizards can easily have more access to spells than Psions have powers, hence, prepared Wizards are more versatile.

18) Arcane casters get Familiars for free at first level. Psions have to use up a feat to gain a Psicrystal.

19) Psions have 4 Mass Powers and 2 of them are discipline specific. Arcane casters have 13 Mass spells in the Players Handbook alone.

20) Psions have disciplines. They are automatically the equivalent of a Specialized Wizard (i.e. limited power selection) with the ability to use up a feat to acquire a single power outside their area. And, many of the cool arcane equivalent powers (e.g. Fly, Teleport, Remote Viewing, Astral Construct, Metamorphosis) are discipline specific. The ability to pick and choose whatever spells you want and not be limited in any way is huge.

21) It is very difficult for Psions to last as many combat rounds as Arcane spell casters. Even without using max PP per manifestation, they will run out of PP before arcane spell casters run out of spells most of the time.

22) Books outside of the core books will feature feats and spells for arcane casters a lot more often then they will psions. Most of the psionic feats and powers are limited to the XPH.

23) Psions (tmk) do not have an equivalent to Spell Turning.


The point most people are missing is that arcane casters are more powerful / versatile in some areas, psions are more powerful / versatile in other areas.

The two systems of "magic" are different with different strengths and weaknesses.

The bottom line to psionic weakness is that they have fewer versatile defensive powers with the exception of AC boosting, they have very few powers that can help out a team, and most of their powers are close range or closer.

Sure, Psions are good at various types of offense for short periods of time. But offense (more damage, higher DCs) is not the be all end all of the game and I think many people cannot wrap their heads around that fact.


----------



## Testament (May 23, 2005)

They do have a spell turning, _kind of_, in Reddopsi.  Its Kineticist only though.


----------



## Shadowdweller (May 23, 2005)

Few issues and minor quibbles.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Have you read my post about the gloves above?
> I claim that globes hinder sorcerers more than psions! And I'm fairly sure about that, too.



 I personally have some issues with your reasoning in this matter.  While psions do in fact get more uses of their higher-level powers, psionic power progression doesn't quite follow the "exponential increase" that spells are reputed to have.  Many of the staple, and better powers are actually lower level...which sort of works from a balance perspective because of the whole augmentation ruleset.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Cloud Mind, for example, is a joke. This weakness is huge.



 While certainly inefficient against multiple opponents, and while the presence of a save is pretty nasty, Cloud Mind also has some HUGE advantages over Invisibility: It affects hearing as well, and cannot be defeated by some of the more traditional means of finding an invisible enemy.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 5) Dominate, Psionic is a concentration power for psions (and also a discipline power). Arcane casters get Dominate Person / Monster for one day per level.



 You might want to check the errata on this one.  Psionic Domination can now be augmented to give the day per level duration without the requirement of concentration.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The two systems of "magic" are different with different strengths and weaknesses.



 Indeed.  Which is a great source of misconception about many different aspects of D&D.  Simply because a class, or spell, or what-have-you, is more powerful than what is offered by any other does NOT make it inherently unbalanced.

Although I can say I don't especially care for the FLAVOR of having psions be more powerful blasters than arcane casters (seeing as how at one time, that was supposed to be the arcane casters' archtypical strength).

Edit: Formatting error


----------



## Shadowdweller (May 23, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'd be happy to.
> etc
> etc
> etc



 Well put, by the way.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 23, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> While certainly inefficient against multiple opponents, and while the presence of a save is pretty nasty, Cloud Mind also has some HUGE advantages over Invisibility: It affects hearing as well, and cannot be defeated by some of the more traditional means of finding an invisible enemy.




Well, I do not consider the advantages of Cloud Mind huge.

It is worthless in combat situations to protect the manifester (unlike the other examples I gave such as Mirror Image, Invisibility, etc.) or in situations with multiple opponents.

It is only worthwhile at all if 1) you have a single target and 2) that target fails a saving throw. If you have to sneak by a half dozen well spaced out guards, for example, Invisibility and Fly are viable. Manifesting Cloud Mind 6 times is not.



			
				Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> You might want to check the errata on this one.  Psionic Domination can now be augmented to give the day per level duration without the requirement of concentration.The two systems of "magic" are different with different strengths and weaknesses.




Yes. When you are an 11th level Telepath (or other Psion using a feat), you can have the same duration as a 9th level Wizard or a 10th level Sorcerer or a 10th level Bard. Mind affecting abililties should be the bread and butter of a Telepath, but arcane spell casters can accomplish the same result at earlier levels. A minor disadvantage to be sure, but they add up.


----------



## Thanee (May 23, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Actually, I would say that your position is what has been disproven repeatidly...




Of course. 

You probably mean one of those evading-the-subject-and-turning-away-the-focus-of-the-discussion-to-another-topic proofs.

Yes, those really work well. 



> Saying that one guy has a total of X known spells and another has Y known spells is reasonable.




Saying so... yes. Using that number to compare their spells known on an equal level... No.

Unless you say - dare I say it again, ah why not - you think _Detect Magic_ adds the same amount of "spells known" as does _Meteor Swarm_.



> Also, I didnt say you misunderstood in this case, I said you were misrepresenting. I have just shown how.




LOL. Yeah, right. 

"No, it's nonsense! See? I have just proven it!" -- typical "Scion argument". 



> Good thing it isnt 'vastly' stronger then. Most of the the time it is either equal or a few more points of dc, at the very highest level it can be much harder to resist but even then in most cases I'd 'still' rather have horrid wilting.




So, you'd rather have an 8th level spell than a 2nd level power? Good choice! 



> You mean your arguement that if the sorc is an exactly the level where he could run into a globe but hasnt quite gotten many spells that can go above it? The one that only works for a single level 'sometimes' and doesnt even apply to any monstrous type opponents? Cool, so for one level there is a problem going the other direction.




Yes! And the note added to that post, you must have missed. 



> But you misquoted so extremely that what you said was a lie. That is the problem.




Misquoted via cut&paste, eh? My computer must have some issues, I guess. 



> Even simply reading the first couple of posts on the first goes through a lot of the problems in a decent way. There are still a few issues and will continue to be, they arent professional writers, they are just people trying to help.




Help with what? Saying that _Energy Missile_ is a completely balanced spell (like you are saying)? Wow! 



> The myths thread was made for a reason: a lot of people overreact to anything different.




Some of those claims listed as myths are pretty ridiculous, of course, but so are many of the arguments, why the others are not.



> In order to give enough on here I would have to post dozens and dozens of posts worth of information. I'd rather just link to one of the more concise places that has many of them instead of doing that.




I see. So there is nothing worthy in there after all. Thought so. 



> I know people wont want to read the whole thread, but at least read the first page with an open mind and trying to see what is going on.




Oh, I did that! And then I laughed. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Shadowdweller (May 23, 2005)

> Yes. When you are an 11th level Telepath (or other Psion using a feat), you can have the same duration as a 9th level Wizard or a 10th level Sorcerer or a 10th level Bard. Mind affecting abililties should be the bread and butter of a Telepath, but arcane spell casters can accomplish the same result at earlier levels. A minor disadvantage to be sure, but they add up.



 Except that the psion is also dominating non-humanoids a good deal earlier than any wizard/sorceror.  (Also, overchannel deserves to be mentioned if we're going to talk about specific levels).

Mind-affecting powers ARE the bread and butter of a telepath.


----------



## Thanee (May 23, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'd be happy to.




Thank you! 

Some comments... the parts I do not quote, I mostly agree with.



> Abjuration magicks are probably the closest for a long while between the two types of casting (arcane and psionic), but the presence of absolutely monstrous spells like the high-end _prismatics_ hand the title to traditional casters. And of course, the end-all-be-all of abjuration, _disjunction_, does not even exist for psionic characters.




While _Mordenkainen's Disjunction_ really is a power-house of a spell, I would rate _Psionic Dispel_ (unless house ruled) to be of an equal power level (that other "power level" ); equal, because its power lies within levels, which are much, much more often seen in actual campaigns.

However, that power will probably be house ruled in most campaigns (funny enough, that it hasn't been covered in the errata), then it's not an issue.



> Healing spells are completely dominated by divine spellcasters. Psions are decent, but they are awful at healing other characters. They enjoy an advantage over arcanists but are nothing compared to divine casters.




Of course, divine casters are not really relevant here. 

So, the availability of healing "magic" can only be seen as a big advantage!



> Summoning... I'll be generous and call this one another tie, but the inability to ever cast any spells or manifest any powers. Traditional casters have elementals for durable beatsticks. Psions don't have anything to conjure up for magical support.




Summoned monsters cannot compare with astral constructs at all, when it comes to combat ability, they are also immune to _Protection from Evil_ and other summon-protections, since they are not summoned. Summons have the advantage of minor magical abilities, of course. While the magical abilities are certainly nice, the combat ability is more powerful IMHO. But it's not that far off, so about even seems to fit.



> Teleportation pretty strongly favors traditional spellcasters. Most of the good teleportation powers exist only on the list of a single psion specialist (the nomad) so for anyone other than the nomad to use them, they must spend feats on them. No arcanist needs to spend a feat to learn spells like _teleport_. 5 out of 6 psions do.




This is irrelevant. While it certainly is a disadvantage for psions in general (also see below), it has nothing to do with the powers themselves. If you say, that teleportation magic is better, since most psions have to spend a feat to get it, then you also have to say, that, for example, _Astral Construct_ is like five times better than any summon spell, because it's nine spells in one, a sorcerer can never hope to match this kind of scaling goodness with _Summon Monster_. We do not do that, so we do not do the other as well.

The psionics version of _Dimension Door_ is vastly superior to the arcane version, therefore alone, psions enjoy an advantage in this area.



> Divination is fairly close, but psionic characters have to pay XP to _scry_ (_remote view_) an opponent.




While arcanists usually cannot use it at all, unless they have a base of operation, yes. Well, unless they get _Greater Scrying_, of course.



> Note that psionic characters also lack great powers like _true strike_ (breaking magic item creation since 2001).




Heh. Not really, tho (breaking the magic item creation, that is).



> They have a greater number of utility powers, but the added XP cost of many powers evens it out.




A lot of the low-level combat-focused divinations are really good and do not cost any XP, tho.

But fairly close... yes, I can see that.



> Enchantment is close. Telepaths have a great variety of ways to mess with someone's mind, but many of them are redundant. Strong enchantments (like the _power words_, _irresistable dance_, and the sort) aren't available to psions while the various subtle mind-messing powers aren't available to non-manifesters.




_Power Words_ are weak. _Otto's Irresistable Dance_ is pretty good, tho.

But how about really strong enchantments like _Mass Suggestion_ and _Dominate Monster_?

Those are available to psions of *moderate* level! Big advantage for the psions there.



> Illusions go hands-down to the traditional spellcasters. The versatility of the _shadow_ spells alone would take the cake, but psions cannot match things like _invisibility_. Figments are also hard to come up with. Most of the psion's strength here lies in the telepathy discipline, and these can all be _mind blank_ed out, while most traditional illusions cannot.




_Mind Blank_ isn't really a big factor. Only at higher level play (much higher and much more rare than _True Seeing_, which you nicely didn't mention and which does foil all illusions).

So, how does it look without _mind blanking_ everything away? That's more important, I think.

Also arcane _Invisibility_ is foiled by many abilities and even low-level spells/powers (starting at 1st). It's still a *very* good spell, of course, and yes, also better than the psionics "equivalent".



> Necromancy is miles ahead for traditional spellcasters. No-brainer here. Arcanists are miles ahead of psionic characters in dealing with undead, and divine characters are lightyears ahead.




Well, that's for sure. Of course psions have no trouble actually dealing with undead, they just have to resort to traditional blasting stuff and such. 



> So call psions the kings of direct damage if you want and say they completely outstrip evocation specialists (despite what the numbers actually say in practice)...




Which numbers would that be? You hopefully do not speak of any of those silly damage comparisons using single spells to compare the total damage dice in a day, which say absolutely nothing about the actual power there.



> ...but then remember that direct damage is one of the weakest options at levels 9 and up (when save-or-dies are much more effective).




That is something I actually do not agree with. Save-or-die is great during moderate to higher levels, but the saves outrun the DCs quickly and there are some really effective countermeasures out there (i.e. _Death Ward_).

Damage is always relevant, if you can deal enough of it.
Remember, that you are usually not alone, and the fighter is dealing damage, too.

If a save-or-die spell fails, you have achieved nothing.
If a damage spell deals half damage, you still have done something meaningful.

Anyways... the king of high-level play are no-save disabling spells/powers, of course.
Without really looking, I'd say that arcanists do have an edge there, tho. 



> Even if psions are the best blasters in the game, they still fall short in terms of save or die spells, effective party-wide buffs, transportation, and utility powers.




Yes, psionics are definitely lacking in the area of party buffing.
Utility, maybe slightly, but not much, they just have different utility powers, but also good ones.

In general, I totally agree, tho (always have and also always stated that myself), that psionics do not have the breadth which arcane spells cover. This is, of course, because there are far more spells out there and most books include spells, but only few have powers (and even then only very few of them). Maybe there will be some book expanding that, I don't know. Right now, it's an advantage for the arcanists for sure.

However, one thing should not be forgotten here, both the sorcerer and the psion have a very limited amount of known spells/powers. This number is in the end the one that is relevant, and there this advantage for the sorcerer (having a better base to choose from), while still present, lessens a lot! Especially once you look at the spell/power levels, which are at any given time most relevant, that is the current highest level spells/powers *known*. The psion always has a HUGE advantage in terms of breadth then. Often knowing four high level powers instead of one spell. That is a tactical breadth the sorcerer cannot match.



> In short, trade-offs which have proven to make the class fairly elegantly balanced.




That "proof" is something I'm missing to date, tho. Can you point me to it, maybe?

Or did you just mean, that in your games psions have proven fairly balanced?
That I can, of course, not disagree with. 

I am actually fairly sure, that these trade-offs (not only the lack of breadth in the power base (so remember what I have written in the above paragraph) and weaker party-friendly powers (I would even consider this an extra trade-off, because it is a fairly important one), also the augmentation cost (no free scaling, which is the BIG trade-off, of course) and other mostly minor stuff) are not enough, not even close, to balance the immense advantages psions have over sorcerers (much more "effective spells known" (lots of augmentable powers include higher level versions, also includes the incredible advantage of freely choosing energy type, a rather big tactical advantage), much more high level powers known at any given level and faster power level progression (huge advantage at all levels, from 3rd+), no caps (which keeps the lower level powers viable, unlike most of the lower level arcane spells), quicker power output and thus always able to create the full effect of their PP in a day (huge advantage, especially at higher levels), spontaneous Quicken (plus _Schism_, which can further improve this output), free DC scaling (auto-heighten, when using a lower level power as a higher level power), no VSM components (auto-still/silent/eschew materials (arcane casters need epic feats for that!), also near grapple immunity, the bane of arcane casters at low-mid levels, also _Silence_ immunity), bonus feats (those are needed to get some of the discipline lists powers, tho, thus are not that big an advantage, of course, they mostly diminish that disadvantage to some degree), better skills (class list and Int instead of the weaker Cha as caster/manifester ability), almost unaffected by _Globe_ spells , and so on). Quite a list. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 23, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 1) Nearly 80% of psionic powers have a range of Close or less. Psions are close range specialists. Arcane spells average a longer range.




This is true, but is this really an issue? How many long range spells/powers do you need to not be ineffective? One? A few? Psions get enough of those for sure and a huge majority of confrontations will happen at short range, anyways (or is that different in your games?).

Out-of-combat, range is usually no issue at all (except in rare, specific circumstances).



> 2) Arcane spells auto-scale, psionic powers require more PP to scale.




Correct. 



> 3) Psions have virtually no "minimize me from being targeted" powers. For example, Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, Mirror Images, Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut, etc. Psions are almost always visible and targetable on the field. Cloud Mind, for example, is a joke. This weakness is huge.




That might be. In general, the self-buffing powers are pretty good, tho.



> 4) Psions get Fly type spells at higher levels. 11th level tends to be the earliest level compared to 5th for Wizards and 6th for Sorcerers (although there are some exceptions) unless they use a feat (which could pull it back to 9th level).




7th level for Egoists, 9th level for everyone else. Not really a difference to typical sorcerers.

That "some exceptions" part for sorcerers is funny...  99% exceptions?



> 5) Dominate, Psionic is a concentration power for psions (and also a discipline power). Arcane casters get Dominate Person / Monster for one day per level.




Yeah, right! _Psionic Dominate_ is a really bad power. C'mon! 



> 6) Catfall drops 10 feet per PP spent from the distance of a fall. Feather Fall drops 60 feet per caster level from the distance of a fall.




Okay, a minor issue, close to being neglectable.



> 7) Arcane casters can cast buff spells on other creatures (e.g. Bull's Strength, Darkvision, etc.). Psions cannot. In fact, psions can manifest very few helpful powers on other creatures.




Yep, a sorcerer can buff his-/herselves AND others Str (for example) with _Bull's Strength_.
A psion can buff his-/herselves Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha with _Animal Affinity_.

Sounds like a fair deal to me, if not more.



> 8) Arcane casters have a defense against Summoned Creatures called Protection From Evil. Arcane casters have a defense against Astral Constructs (and low level Summoned Creatures) called Globe / Lesser Globe of Invulnerability. Psions have no special defense against either summoned creatures or manifested constructs until either Catapsi (which does not help against summoned creatures at all and does not totally protected against manifested creatures either) or Null Psionics Field (i.e. the equivalent of Antimagic Field which arcane casters can get).




Ok. Not much of an issue either, since summoned creatures tend to be rather weak overall.



> 9) Globe / Lesser Globe of Invulnerability will protect 100% against low level divine spells, arcane spells, and psionic powers. Psions have no equivalent defensive power.




There are actually quite a few spells, which psions do not have access to.

There are also some powers, which arcanists have no access to.
Some of those are quite powerful, too (i.e. _Psychic Reformation_, _Psionic Restoration_, _Psionic Freedom of Movement_, etc).



> 10) The Shield spells stops Magic Missile spells. Force Screen does not.




Granted. A very minor issue, tho.



> 11) Expeditious Retreat adds 30 feet to the arcane caster's base movement and last for one minute per level. Burst adds 10 feet for one round. Skate adds 15 feet for one minute per level (but can be cast on others).




_Burst_ did get a hit with the new _Swift Expeditious Retreat_ for sure.
Previously, the free action was a good advantage, now it is no longer.



> 12) Psions have no zeroth level powers, hence, all minor powers (like Detect Psionics or Far Hand or My Light) have to be purchased as first level powers and use up the same minimum amount of PP as other first level powers.




Yeah, a disadvantage (if you can even call it that), that is about completely neglectable from 3rd level onwards.



> 13) Psions have very few area effect disabling / movement limiting powers similar to Stinking Cloud, Fog Cloud, Acid Cloud, Web, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc. Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass is very disabling, but it is a 7th level Shaper power and only available at high level.




Yep. That is one of the areas, where arcane spells are certainly better.



> 14) There are very few good Prestige Classes for psions. The SRD Slayer is good and Cerebremancer and Elocator are ok, but the rest suck (IMO, YMMV). There are boatloads of good Prestige Classes for arcane spell casters.




True enough. Maybe there will be some more in future. 



> 15) This weakness is campaign specific. Most campaigns tend to have more arcane spell casters than psions. Hence on average, there would be more opportunities to acquire arcane specific magical items since there should be more arcane spell casters with access to crafting feats. Minimally, all Wizards get Scribe Scroll, so minimally there should be more opportunities to acquire Scrolls than there are Power Stones. Effectively, if a psion wants a psionic item, he most often will have to craft it himself.




Yep, in some campaigns that could be an issue. Most often, you can then buy items, which will lessen the impact quite effectively. Even arcane casters do not usually find the stuff they really want. 



> 16) Sorcerers can swap out lower level less useful spells every other level. Psions have a more potent way to do this, Psychic Reformation, but it costs XP and uses up a power slot. It is not free like the more minor ability is for a Sorcerer.




I would rather compare the swapping to the auto-level-scaling psions get. The sorcerer has a very limited form of upgrading spells (to higher versions, or something else; this is mostly to prevent sorcerers from avoiding low-level spells with caps, since they would then be stuck with those choices forever like in 3.0).

The psion gets this ability for free for (pretty much) all powers (except, of course, that the psion cannot change to a completely different power), there are very few powers for psions, which are completely useless later on, since there are (almost) no caps and many scale with the power level (can be augmented to higher versions). With a careful choice of powers (which sorcerers, even with the ability to swap one spell every other level, also have to do) this is no issue at all and overall even an advantage for the psion, since it works on the full breadth of their chosen powers, not just an extremely limited amount.

_Psychic Reformation_, while costing a power known, completely tops this ability by being able to rewrite almost your whole character (for a cost, of course).



> 17) Wizards can easily have more access to spells than Psions have powers, hence, prepared Wizards are more versatile.




Yep, that is also the wizard's advantage over the sorcerer.

They have to prepare their spells, tho. No spontaneous casting/manifesting for them.
A quick look at the sorcerer and the wizard class shows, how much this ability is worth.



> 18) Arcane casters get Familiars for free at first level. Psions have to use up a feat to gain a Psicrystal.




A bonus feat, no less. Psions do not get Scribe Scroll or an equivalent, but neither do sorcerers.

Being able to not obtain a familiar, which as I have read many arcane casters do (I don't know why, I like familiars, but still), is a big advantage for the psion. I guess, if you could swap the familiar for a bonus feat, many arcanists would do so.

We all know what makes the human such a powerful race. It's the bonus feat at 1st level!



> 19) Psions have 4 Mass Powers and 2 of them are discipline specific. Arcane casters have 13 Mass spells in the Players Handbook alone.




Did you include all the augmentable powers, or only those with "mass" in their name?



> 20) Psions have disciplines. They are automatically the equivalent of a Specialized Wizard (i.e. limited power selection) with the ability to use up a feat to acquire a single power outside their area. And, many of the cool arcane equivalent powers (e.g. Fly, Teleport, Remote Viewing, Astral Construct, Metamorphosis) are discipline specific. The ability to pick and choose whatever spells you want and not be limited in any way is huge.




Agreed. That is a huge disadvantage.

However, since their powers known are limited (as with the sorcerer), this disadvantage is not as big as it would be, if they were more akin to wizards (then it would be REALLY huge).

Also, with the bonus feats, this disadvantage is lessened further.

In the end, it comes to how any psion's power selection really looks like compared to a spell list a sorcerer can cast the daily spells from. That is the only spell/power list, that is really relevant. If you look at those, I don't think the psion is at such a disadvantage, really. All in all (including the quicker access to higher levels and the higher number of powers of the highest levels) the psion is probably at a rather big advantage even. We all know how much more important the highest known levels are.



> 21) It is very difficult for Psions to last as many combat rounds as Arcane spell casters. Even without using max PP per manifestation, they will run out of PP before arcane spell casters run out of spells most of the time.




Yes, but by the time they run out, they have already done like half-again or even twice as much.



> 22) Books outside of the core books will feature feats and spells for arcane casters a lot more often then they will psions. Most of the psionic feats and powers are limited to the XPH.




See 14).



> 23) Psions (tmk) do not have an equivalent to Spell Turning.




See 9).



> The point most people are missing is that arcane casters are more powerful / versatile in some areas, psions are more powerful / versatile in other areas.




Who is missing that? I certainly am not. 



> The two systems of "magic" are different with different strengths and weaknesses.




So much for sure.



> The bottom line to psionic weakness is that they have fewer versatile defensive powers with the exception of AC boosting, they have very few powers that can help out a team, and most of their powers are close range or closer.
> 
> Sure, Psions are good at various types of offense for short periods of time. But offense (more damage, higher DCs) is not the be all end all of the game and I think many people cannot wrap their heads around that fact.




Sure.

Higher offense, lower defense... that sounds like a reasonable trade-off to me.

The problem is just, that psions get more advantages (see last paragraph of above post) than disadvantages compared to sorcerers (or arcane casters in general).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Testament (May 23, 2005)

OK, I must be missing something.  What's so hot about Dispel Psionics?


----------



## Thanee (May 23, 2005)

The problem with _Dispel Psionics_ is, that it can be augmented to a +20 dispel check at 10th level.



> You make a dispel check (1d20 + your manifester level, maximum +10)
> 
> For every additional power point you spend, the bonus on your dispel check increases by 2 (to a maximum bonus of +20 for a 5-point expenditure).




This is because it scales automatically to +10 (just like the spell) and in addition can be further augmented for another +10.

But as I said, I believe most DMs will not allow that as written, because it's really unreasonable. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Jackelope King (May 23, 2005)

> Of course, divine casters are not really relevant here.
> 
> So, the availability of healing "magic" can only be seen as a big advantage!



Probably because psionics is extremely weak compared to divine magic.







> Summoned monsters cannot compare with astral constructs at all, when it comes to combat ability, they are also immune to Protection from Evil and other summon-protections, since they are not summoned. Summons have the advantage of minor magical abilities, of course. While the magical abilities are certainly nice, the combat ability is more powerful IMHO. But it's not that far off, so about even seems to fit.



The combat ability is nothing when you can summon something with good spells. And compare a greater earth elemental to an 8th level astral construct: Construct has many fewer HP, but a higher AC. Construct has a slightly higher attack bonus, but the elemental has much higher damage. The construct is smaller, which is sometimes an advantage and sometimes a disadvantage. The construct has DR 15/magic while the elemental has the much better DR 10/-. The elemental has huge advantages from its feat list (allowing it to naturally plow through hordes of weaker foes with cleave/great cleave and giving it more tactical options with Improved bull rush and improved sunder. The construct can get his hands on some nice abilities from the high-level construction menu, but he only gets 1 choice. He'd be hard-pressed to be as durable as the elemental, and if he made this choice he would be weak compared to the earth elemental's earth glide mobility. If he went for instead for extra damage from something like rend or crowd control via concusion, he'll be weak in every other way.







> This is irrelevant. While it certainly is a disadvantage for psions in general (also see below), it has nothing to do with the powers themselves. If you say, that teleportation magic is better, since most psions have to spend a feat to get it, then you also have to say, that, for example, Astral Construct is like five times better than any summon spell, because it's nine spells in one, a sorcerer can never hope to match this kind of scaling goodness with Summon Monster. We do not do that, so we do not do the other as well.



It is _not_ irrelevant since we're talking about _psions_ here, unless I missed a moving of the goal posts. And _dimension door_ is the same in both the XPH and PHB. The only difference is that a psion can augment the power. Well guess what? An arcane caster can one-up the manifesters and quicken their dimension door. Metamagic feats are a huge advantage for arcane casters that rarely get mentioned.







> While arcanists usually cannot use it at all, unless they have a base of operation, yes. Well, unless they get Greater Scrying, of course.



All an arcanist needs is a mirror, which can easily be carried in a _portable hole_ or similar magic item. An arcanist can spend 1000 gp and be able to _scry_ whenever he wants two levels later because he can get _teleport_ without spending a feat. But at level 4 the poor guy will have to resort to using dang ol' _rope trick_ if he wants to use the spell in the middle of an adventure. A psion can... oh wait! A psion never gets anything near the "save point" power that is _rope trick_ or similar shelter spells. If he wants creature comforts he needs to either be a nomad or he needs to spend a feat to be able to _teleport_ home.







> Power Words are weak. Otto's Irresistable Dance is pretty good, tho.
> 
> But how about really strong enchantments like Mass Suggestion and Dominate Monster?
> 
> Those are available to psions of *moderate* level! Big advantage for the psions there.



And these are entirely trumped by a first level arcane spell called _protection from magic_. Psions have to wait until level 7 spells with _personal mind blank_.







> Mind Blank isn't really a big factor. Only at higher level play (much higher and much more rare than True Seeing, which you nicely didn't mention and which does foil all illusions).
> 
> So, how does it look without mind blanking everything away? That's more important, I think.
> 
> Also arcane Invisibility is foiled by many abilities and even low-level spells/powers (starting at 1st). It's still a *very* good spell, of course, and yes, also better than the psionics "equivalent".



Without mindblanking it still lacks the versatility of illusions. There are no powers which compare to the _shadow_ spells in terms of versatility. There are no psion powers which are so multi-purpose as _silent image_. And _true seeing_ at high levels is still rarer than _mind blank_ because _mind blank_ is an all-day, passive buff. _True seeing_ is active, as you have to cast the spell whenever you want to use it, it only lasts a few minutes, and you have to know that you are dealing with illusions or else you just wasted the spell.







> Which numbers would that be? You hopefully do not speak of any of those silly damage comparisons using single spells to compare the total damage dice in a day, which say absolutely nothing about the actual power there.



The "silly" ones where arcanists use metamagic feats over a series of several encounters and more than double the damage potential of a psionic character. Because as I mentioned before, metapsionic feats are god-awful compared to metamagic feats, a huge advantage for arcane casters.







> That is something I actually do not agree with. Save-or-die is great during moderate to higher levels, but the saves outrun the DCs quickly and there are some really effective countermeasures out there (i.e. Death Ward).
> 
> Damage is always relevant, if you can deal enough of it.
> Remember, that you are usually not alone, and the fighter is dealing damage, too.
> ...



And damage is always a cure away, which means that dealing enough of it is questionable at best. If a save-or-die spell succeeds, you've just won the encounter. If a damage spell deals half damage, you've forced the BBEG to spend resources healing himself. And yes, no-save powers are obviously the kings at high level, and by your own admission arcanists have the advantage here.







> Yes, psionics are definitely lacking in the area of party buffing.
> Utility, maybe slightly, but not much, they just have different utility powers, but also good ones.



And most of those good utility spells are discipline spells.







> In general, I totally agree, tho (always have and also always stated that myself), that psionics do not have the breadth which arcane spells cover. This is, of course, because there are far more spells out there and most books include spells, but only few have powers (and even then only very few of them). Maybe there will be some book expanding that, I don't know. Right now, it's an advantage for the arcanists for sure.



Agreed.







> However, one thing should not be forgotten here, both the sorcerer and the psion have a very limited amount of known spells/powers. This number is in the end the one that is relevant, and there this advantage for the sorcerer (having a better base to choose from), while still present, lessens a lot! Especially once you look at the spell/power levels, which are at any given time most relevant, that is the current highest level spells/powers *known*. The psion always has a HUGE advantage in terms of breadth then. Often knowing four high level powers instead of one spell. That is a tactical breadth the sorcerer cannot match.



I'll call bull on this. I have never once in my entire time playing 3rd Edition seen a sorcerer _not_ pick _shadow evocation/conjuration_ spells. These spells give the sorcerer access (with just two spells) to _two schools of magic_. _That_ is a versatility psions can never match.







> I am actually fairly sure, that these trade-offs (not only the lack of breadth in the power base (so remember what I have written in the above paragraph) and weaker party-friendly powers (I would even consider this an extra trade-off, because it is a fairly important one), also the augmentation cost (no free scaling, which is the BIG trade-off, of course) and other mostly minor stuff) are not enough, not even close, to balance the immense advantages psions have over sorcerers (much more "effective spells known" (lots of augmentable powers include higher level versions, also includes the incredible advantage of freely choosing energy type, a rather big tactical advantage), much more high level powers known at any given level and faster power level progression (huge advantage at all levels, from 3rd+), no caps (which keeps the lower level powers viable, unlike most of the lower level arcane spells), quicker power output and thus always able to create the full effect of their PP in a day (huge advantage, especially at higher levels), spontaneous Quicken (plus Schism, which can further improve this output), free DC scaling (auto-heighten, when using a lower level power as a higher level power), no VSM components (auto-still/silent/eschew materials (arcane casters need epic feats for that!), also near grapple immunity, the bane of arcane casters at low-mid levels, also Silence immunity), bonus feats (those are needed to get some of the discipline lists powers, tho, thus are not that big an advantage, of course, they mostly diminish that disadvantage to some degree), better skills (class list and Int instead of the weaker Cha as caster/manifester ability), almost unaffected by Globe spells , and so on). Quite a list.



They have fewer spells known careof the shadow spells and their actual spell lists (I know you love to claim that augmentation means a power is more like fifty powers, but this just doesn't hold up in actual gameplay). Spontaneous quicken with feats just does not happen... psionic focus prevents this from being anything more than once per encounter. Schism is like fighting with a big gun in one hand and a pop gun in the other. No VSM is balanced because everyone knows when a psion manifests power everyone smells/hears/sees it. Quicker power output = quicker power burnout. "Free DC Scaling" only effects a small number of spells and (guess what?) you have to pay for it. I get the impression from your arguments that you have never once played a psion, because you seem to have some very, very  simplistic views on how it actually works in real gameplay. In a real game, a psion who goes for the gusto and blows out all his powers points quickly learns that this is a bad idea (from later encounters where he's weak or when he doesn't have the ability to manifest a helpful power later in a non-combat encounter). I have seen two of the "big bad psions" described in this thread. Within two sessions they had learned that blowing through power points in one encounter just doesn't work (and this was after sessions with _a single combat encounter_). Real games with psionics alongside traditional casters just don't have the problems you describe. In fact, high-level play with psions taking the place of traditional casters tends to make things more balanced since high-level spells tend to out-muscle high-level powers (by your own admission).

Psions have damage on their side (a questionable as usual accusation, but one I will conceed is moot). Arcanists have _everything else_ Creature comforts? Arcanists. Utility? Arcanists. Illusions? Arcanists. Necromancy? Big time arcanists. Enchantment, conjuration, and abjuration? Those are pretty close. Evocation? Fine. Let the psions have it.

One out of eight schools of magic give psions an argueable strength in, and it is widely considered to be among the weakest schools.

You're right. Having some strength in one weak field makes the class completely broken. How could I have thought otherwise?


----------



## Vurt (May 23, 2005)

Personally I always thought psions were balanced primarily against specialist wizards.  (i.e. Barred schools versus good spells on discipline lists, similar number of pp/equivalent spells per day, bonus feats at the same levels, etc.)  Comparing it to a sorcerer all the time seems to be an apples and oranges thing.  Perhaps the wizard isn't perfectly balanced against a sorcerer.  I seem to recall a multitude of threads, back in the day, on the very subject.

So why are we comparing it to a sorcerer?  Is it just the spontaneous casting thing?

Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## Ovinomancer (May 23, 2005)

> 2) Spells scale for free, powers don't. A sorcerer gets a scaled effect with his spells based on his caster level, a psion gets scaled effects on his powers based on how many points he spends. No one posting complaints about psionics seems to realize how big a difference this is. Example: Energy Ray vs Scorching Ray.
> 
> Energy Ray, ML 3, 2nd level power equivalent = 3d6+3
> Scorching Ray, CL 3, 2nd level spell = 4d6
> ...




This example has some pretty serious flaws.  I will limit my discussion to the last block for conciseness.  

First is that scorching ray does a MAXIMUM of 16d6, not 60d6.  Unless the poster intended to represent 5 *seperate* scroching ray spells, in which case you are discussing the 1 round damage output or energy blast (20d6+20) vs the 5 rounds necessary to achieve the 60d6 result from scorching ray.  This type of comparision is logically flawed in that you are providing results based on different circumstances.  The better example is the twin spell split ray empowered scorching ray, which, while I do not have current access to those feats, feasably creates a 48d6 cumulative damage in one go.  At the cost of 3 feats.  

The second fallacy in this argument involves the potential reistance of the target.  I will dispense with obvious advantage of enery ray (namely that you may choose your energy type on the fly), and assume that a resistance of 10, 20, and 30 apply to both effects.  At a resistance of 10, energy ray will deal 20d6+10 points of damage (an average of 100 damage).  The Twin Split Empowered (TSE) Scorching Ray, however, will do 48d6-80 points of damage (136 damage).  Advantage Acrane caster.  At 20 resistance, the energy ray will do 20d6 damage (average 90), and the TSE Scorching Ray will do 48d6-160 (an average of 56 damage).  Advantage to the Psion.  At reistance 30 (which, mind you, is available to arcane and divine casters at 12th level) the energy ray does 20d6-10 damage (80 average) and the TSE Scorching Ray is reduced to 48d6-240 (average damage -24, *maximum* damage 48).  The arcane caster is now left sucking his thumb while the Psion continues to blast unabated.  

I do not stand in either camp in this discussion.  I don't have psionics IMC because I do not want to deal with the extra work involved in learning the ruleset.  Mostly because I am lazy and like my game the way it is.     I do, however, have a problem with faulty logic.  This arguement looked OK on the surface, but failed the grade when closely scrutinized.  

My 2c.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 23, 2005)

I agree with most of what you said, but you have a few mistakes here:



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The "silly" ones where arcanists use metamagic feats over a series of several encounters and more than double the damage potential of a psionic character. Because as I mentioned before, metapsionic feats are god-awful compared to metamagic feats, a huge advantage for arcane casters.




I do not understand this at all. Metapsionic feats are just as powerful as metamagic feats. In fact, metapsionic feats can be even more potent than metamagic feats by using Overchannel/Talented.

For example, Empowered Fireball is a 5th level spell that requires a 9th level Wizard.

A 9th level Psion can Empower a 7D6+7 Fire Energy power that is exactly equal in average damage to the 9D6 Empowered Fireball. However, the same 9th level Psion could Overchannel that to Empowered 9D6+9.

But even without Overchanneling it, the power levels for the two meta feats are basically equal.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Spontaneous quicken with feats just does not happen... psionic focus prevents this from being anything more than once per encounter.




Psionic Meditation allows psions to use their psionic focus multiple times per combat. My 8th level psion uses her psionic focus 1 to 6 times per combat, mostly for Psionic Weapon.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Schism is like fighting with a big gun in one hand and a pop gun in the other.




Incorrect. Schism is like cheap auto-quicken every round. The 6 level difference is identical to the Quicken Power feat, the main differences are that you do not have to use up your psionic focus to accomplish it and multiple quickened powers via Schism are cheaper.

Plus, it is hard to disrupt any power manifested with Schism. Plus, Schism is an additional protection versus mind affecting powers/spells. Plus, if you use Schism on more than one round, it decreases the cost of your "quickened schismed powers" (in other words, 7 PP for Schism and three 1 PP Schismed Entangling Ectoplasms cost 10 PP total, 3 Quickened Entangling Ectoplasms costs 21 PP total).

The only advantage Quicken has over Schism is that the manifester level for Schism is 6 levels lower. However, there are a lot of powers like Entangling Ectoplasm where this does not make a difference.

Schism is better for some non-offensive powers. Quicken is better for offensive powers that have DCs or for powers where range or duration is a factor.

Effectively, taking Schism is like taking a power to replace the Quicken feat (and then some).



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> No VSM is balanced because everyone knows when a psion manifests power everyone smells/hears/sees it.




This does not have to be correct. Psionic displays can be totally muted with a Concentration roll. Not only that, a psion can use up his psionic focus to guarantee a Take 15 Concentration roll to do this.


----------



## Thanee (May 23, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Probably because psionics is extremely weak compared to divine magic.




Do you honestly think that divine magic is stronger than psionics?
Do you also think that divine magic is stronger than arcane magic?



> The combat ability is nothing when you can summon something with good spells.




There is very little in the summon monster list, which has good spells, tho.



> And compare a greater earth elemental to an 8th level astral construct.




Yep, the greater earth elemental isn't much weaker. It doesn't have the additional flexibility with the package stuff, but then again, you can summon other monsters, of course. The better AC probably balances out with the lower hit points. A low AC is not good, when even the 3rd and 4th attacks hit regularily then.

At that high levels, the summoned stuff is mostly ignored, anyways.
That's also true for the constructs, of course. 



> It is _not_ irrelevant since we're talking about _psions_ here, unless I missed a moving of the goal posts.




Yeah, it's not irrelevant for the psion, of course. It's just irrelevant to comparing the spells and powers.

I'm well aware of the disadvantage with the discipline lists, but I would consider that as a seperate (and pretty big) disadvantage and not mix it in with this comparison.



> And _dimension door_ is the same in both the XPH and PHB. The only difference is that a psion can augment the power. Well guess what? An arcane caster can one-up the manifesters and quicken their dimension door.




Sorcerers cannot quicken.
Wizards need to prepare that as an 8th level spell.
Psions can do it, whenever they need it.



> Metamagic feats are a huge advantage for arcane casters that rarely get mentioned.




For wizards: No, they are not. Metamagic is quite commonly bashed for being almost useless for them.

For sorcerers: Metamagic is good, but it costs them feats, of which they do not have many. It does not really make their spells much more effective, it just helps them keep their lower level spells useful. With metamagic the higher level slots get burned up even quicker, tho.

Psions gain most of the advantages, sorcerers gain through metamagic, for free (no feat cost, that is), anyways. And they can use metapsionics as well, all they need in addition is to spend one of their bonus feats on Psionic Meditation. Sure, the interaction with augmentation and metapsionic cost makes them a little less effective than their magical counterparts, but they do cost less to use, too.



> And these are entirely trumped by a first level arcane spell called _protection from evil_.




So? Does everyone in your games have this spell running?
Besides, _Suggestion_ is unaffected by that spell.

_Antimagic Field_ also negates all magic and psionics, so I guess they are just glorified commoners then. 

Seriously, countermeasures are good, but how often one encounters them is much more important!



> There are no powers which compare to the _shadow_ spells in terms of versatility.




Ok, the shadow spells are good. They have their limits, and the lowest versions are not really great, but all in all they are good spells for sure. At least the conjuration one. The evocation one is pretty bad, actually.



> And _true seeing_ at high levels is still rarer than _mind blank_ because _mind blank_ is an all-day, passive buff.




There are plenty creatures with permanent _True Seeing_ and rather few with _Mind Blank_. Only arcanists, psions and very few clerics have that.

No, I don't think you would encounter _Mind Blank_ more often than _True Seeing_, unless you play into epic levels, maybe.



> The "silly" ones where arcanists use metamagic feats over a series of several encounters and more than double the damage potential of a psionic character.




Yeah, that's what I meant. 



> And damage is always a cure away, which means that dealing enough of it is questionable at best. If a save-or-die spell succeeds, you've just won the encounter.




Hey, I agree, that having a save-or-die spell succeed is better, but that simply doesn't happen very often at higher levels. And wasting actions isn't exactly good at higher levels.



> If a damage spell deals half damage, you've forced the BBEG to spend resources healing himself.




Resources *and* actions. If I manage to do that, the BBEG is already toast! 



> I'll call bull on this.




Who's Bull? 



> I have never once in my entire time playing 3rd Edition seen a sorcerer _not_ pick _shadow evocation/conjuration_ spells. These spells give the sorcerer access (with just two spells) to _two schools of magic_.




Well, yes, but they are still pretty limited and you waste a higher level slot for a lower level effect.

The versatility is great for a sorcerer, because they have so little spells known, but they are not nearly as effective as the real spells.

Anyways, I was speaking of high level spells/powers not low level spells/powers.
The shadow spells give you more low level spells, but not more high level ones.





> They have fewer spells known careof the shadow spells and their actual spell lists (I know you love to claim that augmentation means a power is more like fifty powers, ...




Roughly. 



> ...but this just doesn't hold up in actual gameplay).




No? So psions in actual gameplay never augment lower level powers then?

Psions in actual gameplay do not have (for example) at 10th level a total of four true 5th level powers, where the sorcerer has only one? And at 11th level then an additional 6th level power for the sorcerer's second 5th level spell? And in addition to that a couple of lower level powers, which can be augmented to have the effect of a spell of that level (note: I'm only speaking of powers, which can be augmented to become a higher version of the same spell/power, like _Astral Construct_, for example)?



> Spontaneous quicken with feats just does not happen... psionic focus prevents this from being anything more than once per encounter. Schism is like fighting with a big gun in one hand and a pop gun in the other.




-6 levels is not that bad, once you have a certain level (mid to high). _Schism_ and Quicken are both high level abilities, of course. Makes no sense to use them at 8th or 10th level, so much for sure.



> No VSM is balanced because everyone knows when a psion manifests power everyone smells/hears/sees it.




Right, that's about the same. 



> Quicker power output = quicker power burnout.




And here I must really ask... do you think, that this is a balancing factor?

Would you allow a sorcerer to simply cast two spells a round then?
That's also quicker output and quicker burnout!



> "Free DC Scaling" only effects a small number of spells and (guess what?) you have to pay for it.




Not specifically, it's like using Heighten Spell, you also pay for it by using a higher level slot, but you do not get an additional effect then. Psionics give the additional effect *and* the DC.



> I get the impression from your arguments that you have never once played a psion, because you seem to have some very, very  simplistic views on how it actually works in real gameplay.




How do you come to that conclusion? Simplistic view?



> In a real game, a psion who goes for the gusto and blows out all his powers points quickly learns that this is a bad idea (from later encounters where he's weak or when he doesn't have the ability to manifest a helpful power later in a non-combat encounter).




Maybe you did not get to the base of what I'm saying.

Just to make sure: I do not say, that a psion should always blow out PP as there was no tomorrow! I just say, that the psion *can* do so, if the situation requires it.

Listing all the possible ways to use the PP over a day would require waaay too much time and space.



> I have seen two of the "big bad psions" described in this thread.




*puzzled look*

What psions are you talking about?



> Real games with psionics alongside traditional casters just don't have the problems you describe.




Maybe you just didn't notice them? 
Maybe your campaign style does match the few, that make psions balanced with arcanists?



> In fact, high-level play with psions taking the place of traditional casters tends to make things more balanced since high-level spells tend to out-muscle high-level powers (by your own admission).




Nah, I just said, that arcane spells have the edge at the no-save category.
However, the ability to manifest a multiple of high level effects is much stronger IMHO.



> Psions have damage on their side (a questionable as usual accusation, but one I will conceed is moot).




Not damage... effect! They generate more effect in an average day (as explained in a post above).

Damage is just one form of effect.



> Arcanists have _everything else_ Creature comforts? Arcanists. Utility? Arcanists. Illusions? Arcanists. Necromancy? Big time arcanists. Enchantment, conjuration, and abjuration? Those are pretty close. Evocation? Fine. Let the psions have it.




Now you make a big jump here.

The spells from those schools favor the arcanists over the psions with their powers. Yes.
But that is only, if you look at the complete lists. Those never come into play effectively.

The point of comparison is the sorcerer, and with the _extremely_ limited spell selection the sorcerer cannot make decent use of that advantage!

The wizard can, sure, but the wizard has no spontaneous casting ability.



> You're right. Having some strength in one weak field makes the class completely broken. How could I have thought otherwise?




You have totally not understood what I am saying, if that is the conclusion you draw.

I think my "simplistic view" is just too complex for people to understand... 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Someone (May 23, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what you said, but you have a few mistakes here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Minor nitpick: said psion would be also taking 3d8 damage, since he would have to spend his focus on the Talented and Empower feats, and can´t use Talented at all if he´s using Energy Ball, since it´s a 4th level power. 

Unless you´re using Psicrystal Containment, and some power of 3rd level or less. In that case, the psion is using 5 feats: overchannel, talented, psicrystal affinity, psicrystal containment, and empower. Probably Expanded knowledge, too, if he´s not a Kineticist, versus the Empower feat the wizard or sorcerer is using.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 23, 2005)

Someone said:
			
		

> Minor nitpick: said psion would be also taking 3d8 damage, since he would have to spend his focus on the Talented and Empower feats, and can´t use Talented at all if he´s using Energy Ball, since it´s a 4th level power.
> 
> Unless you´re using Psicrystal Containment, and some power of 3rd level or less. In that case, the psion is using 5 feats: overchannel, talented, psicrystal affinity, psicrystal containment, and empower. Probably Expanded knowledge, too, if he´s not a Kineticist, versus the Empower feat the wizard or sorcerer is using.




Energy Ball, Energy Missile, Energy Cone, and Energy Current are the 4 Energy offensive powers that are Kineticist discipline specific. Of these, only Energy Ball and Energy Current do damage when using Overchannel/Talented.

But, there are other options.

You can use any of the other 8 Energy offensive powers without using a feat: Energy Bolt, Energy Burst, Energy Push, Energy Ray, Energy Retort, Energy Stun, Energy Wall, or Energy Wave.

So, you can use any of these with Empower Power and do more average damage (for fire and cold energy) starting at level 10 (i.e. Empowered 8D6+8 > Empowered 10D6). The exception to this is Energy Wave which cannot be used until level 13.

With Overchannel and Talented for those Energy powers less than level 4, you could increase this damage even more starting at level 6 (i.e. Overchanneled Empowered 5D6+5 > Empowered 6D6) and take no damage.

With Overchannel and Vigor for any of these Energy powers, regardless of their level, you could increase this damage even more starting at level 6 (i.e. Overchanneled Empowered 5D6+5 > Empowered 6D6) and take no damage (or at higher level for those powers above level 3).


So with two feats (Overchannel and Empower) and two powers (Vigor and Energy X), you can be more effective than most arcane spell casters in this area. You do not have to be a Kineticist or use up an Expanded Knowledge feat to get there.

But, it will cost you some PP and time (you have to pump up with Vigor before you can Overchannel or you will take real damage).


----------



## Someone (May 23, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Energy Ball, Energy Missile, Energy Cone, and Energy Current are the 4 Energy offensive powers that are Kineticist discipline specific. Of these, only Energy Ball and Energy Current do damage when using Overchannel/Talented.
> 
> But, there are other options.
> 
> ...




It was a minor nitpick, just to show that in your previous post you were really saying "metapsionic feats are superior to metamagic feats if you also use feats A, B, C and D!", wich should be kinda obvious. The argument hasn´t changed a lot, since now instead of feats A, B, C and D it´s Feat A, power B and time to buff. I mentioned energy ball only because you were using fireball in yor post, and that was the closest in terms of shape, and anyway, when it comes to brokenness energy burst (who would take that power anyway?) is rarely mentioned; it´s energy missile what takes all the spotlight.

(by the way, I´m of the opinion that energy missile should be errataed, too, but´s that goes out of the point discussed)

I should also mention that why the arcanist should limit himself to one metamagic feat? If we´re speaking of damage dealing, he can slap as many feats he can or own with metamagic rods (maximize, empower, twin...) while the psion, even overchanneling, has to balance them with augmentation, can´t use more than 2 (and that´s using 2 feats) or use them more than once in a fight unless he´s taking again more feats.


----------



## Nail (May 23, 2005)

Scion!  Hello There!  We haven't argued about psionics for, what?....a month, at least!    Anyway, nice to see you here in the thread.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Here are my concerns, born out in play (using 3.5e):
> 
> (1)Psions can manifest too many high (or highest) level powers.
> (2)In order to challenge the psion, you must have 2-4 combats per day (and one of those encounters had better include someone with a Dispel Magic/Psionics).
> ...




...and you responded:







			
				Scion said:
			
		

> (1) completely subjective and not useful in any fashion....(snip)....
> 
> (2) In order to make the system work for any class made so far this has to be done. Not doing so causes lots of other problems. The problem here is not the psion, it is with people not playing the system properly and creating a problem themselves.......(snip)....
> 
> ...




Thanks for responding, BTW.    

So:

#1) The only subjective term is "too many".  If that term does work for you, let's try "about twice as many".  How's that?

Psions can put all of their PP into higher (or highest) level powers.  Spell-casters cannot.  The difference is marked, and readily apparent IME....and, in reading the story boards, in many other campaigns. Put another way: Having 7+ 2nd level spells is not very useful to a Wiz 17.  Psions have no such restriction.  (BTW, your statement: _"since the arcanes version tends to be too weak anyway it is completely irrelevant if the psions version is stronger."_  is hardly an arguement in the psion's favor.)

If this "Too many high-level powers" thing was my *only* concern, and was balanced by the preponderance of the other class abilities, I'd let it slide.  But it's not.


#2)Your assertion is not born out in other games, both the games I'm involved in, and the games I've read about.  Asserting that _"people not playing the system properly"_ is ....unconvincing.  


#3)Even with the default transparency, lots of things have to be changed.  Your BBEG Wizard's spell-list, for one.  He'd better have researched a "Dismiss Ectoplasm" spell if he knows what's good for him.  This problem is huge.


#4)You've ducked the Energy Substitution arguement before.  And missed the ability to manifest powers in amazing circumstances, like a grapple.  Etc.  This problem is also huge.


#5)Sounds like we should make a list of broken spells and powers.  I'd make a fair bet the Powers list is more egregious.  Regardless, it's the "counters" issue that I have the most concerns about (born out in real play, BTW, not some conjecture).  The Ectoplasm power s are the chief example, although the move-action Dimensional Slide, and the un-errata'd Energy Missile is high on the list. <EDIT>: Yoowza!  I forgot Astral Construct!  


There.  Point for point, and then some.  Your serve!

(Where's this thread's starter?  Didn't he want to discuss this issue with me?     )


----------



## Thanee (May 23, 2005)

Vurt said:
			
		

> Personally I always thought psions were balanced primarily against specialist wizards.  (i.e. Barred schools versus good spells on discipline lists, similar number of pp/equivalent spells per day, bonus feats at the same levels, etc.)  Comparing it to a sorcerer all the time seems to be an apples and oranges thing.




Nah, I think it's exactly the other way around. Psion and sorcerer are very similar, while psion and wizard are two completely different things.



> Perhaps the wizard isn't perfectly balanced against a sorcerer.  I seem to recall a multitude of threads, back in the day, on the very subject.




The wizard is certainly a bit ahead of the sorcerer, but that is just a small difference.

Only, if the campaign style heavily favors wizards, that is, allows them to almost always know in advance what spells they need and almost always give them the 15 minutes to change their spell selection, only then is the wizard vastly superior to the sorcerer, for obvious reasons.



> So why are we comparing it to a sorcerer?  Is it just the spontaneous casting thing?




Exactly, because that is the primary ability of both the psion and the sorcerer.

Comparing psion and wizard is not very easily done, because you have two fundamentally different casters, there, one that prepares and one that casts (well, manifests) spontaneously.

Too bad, that there is no prepared psionic user, that would make things a lot easier. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 23, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The only advantage Quicken has over Schism is that the manifester level for Schism is 6 levels lower.




This is actually no difference, since Quicken also costs 6 PP, which is exactly the -6 manifester level from _Schism_. Or rather, the difference is, that with _Schism_ you do not pay the extra 6 PP to "quicken" the power, the maximum manifester level is effectively the same, tho.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (May 23, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> This is actually no difference, since Quicken also costs 6 PP, which is exactly the -6 manifester level from _Schism_. Or rather, the difference is, that with _Schism_ you do not pay the extra 6 PP to "quicken" the power, the maximum manifester level is effectively the same, tho.




Incorrect.

Quicken Power increases the number of PP of the power by 6. The manifester level is the same.

Schism limits the manifester level of the power to 6 below that of the character.

For example, an 11th level Psion could Quicken Darkvision. It would last for 11 hours.

An 11th level Psion cound instead Schism Darkvision. It would last for 5 hours because the schismed mind has a manifester 6 less than normal.

"Your second mind can manifest powers using your power point reserve, but only as if your manifester level were six lower than it is."


----------



## Thanee (May 23, 2005)

Ah, ok, you're right there, of course.

For effects that scale with manifester level, like duration, and for SR penetration, too, then.

I was mainly thinking about the actual effect of the spell, there the effective manifester level (that is amount of PP that can be spent on base cost+augmentation) is the same.

A _quickened Energy Ray_ at maximum augmentation does the same as an _Energy Ray_ with maximum augmentation manifested via _Schism_, for example.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (May 24, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> This is true, but is this really an issue? How many long range spells/powers do you need to not be ineffective? One? A few? Psions get enough of those for sure and a huge majority of confrontations will happen at short range, anyways (or is that different in your games?).




Range has been an issue in about one combat in three or four for both psions in our group since level one.

Looking at this on paper, I can see where people wouldn't think that it is a big deal. In an actual game though, it comes up.

It's a weakness, no doubt about it.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> That might be. In general, the self-buffing powers are pretty good, tho.




The self buffing powers are good. But, they do not make up for the fact that arcane caster can "disappear" from the battlefield completely and still be a factor in the battle.

There is a major difference between boosting a save by two and being hard or impossible to target by opponents.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> 7th level for Egoists, 9th level for everyone else. Not really a difference to typical sorcerers.
> 
> That "some exceptions" part for sorcerers is funny...  99% exceptions?




I actually meant "some exceptions" to 11th level psions (like the 7th level Nomad or Egoist).



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, right! _Psionic Dominate_ is a really bad power. C'mon!




Compared to Dominate Person where you do not have to concentrate on it and it lasts one day per level?

Granted, they errata-ed it, but Telepaths should have the advantage here and even with the errata, arcane casters have a duration advantage for a few levels.

What I find interesting is that when a power is weaker than a spell, people think it's unimportant. When a power is greater than a spell, people think it's important.

When a spell exists and a power does not, it's unimportant. When a power exists and a spell does not, it's important.

Why is that?



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Okay, a minor issue, close to being neglectable.




If you say so. I was just pointing out where psions were weaker. This is one.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Yep, a sorcerer can buff his-/herselves AND others Str (for example) with _Bull's Strength_.
> A psion can buff his-/herselves Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha with _Animal Affinity_.
> 
> Sounds like a fair deal to me, if not more.




The point is that a psion buffing his weak ability scores does not gain anything. An arcane caster buffing the strong ability scores of fellow PCs gains a LOT in many circumstances.

Increasing the AC of the Rogue by 2 when the Rogue already has the highest AC in the party allows the Rogue to hold off an enemy for a while.

Increasing the to hit and damage of the Fighter by 2 (or 3 for damage with a two handed weapon) allows the Fighter to more easily bypass Damage Reduction and to take out opponents faster.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Ok. Not much of an issue either, since summoned creatures tend to be rather weak overall.




Here you are just incorrect. A prepared arcane caster can be immune to summoned monsters or manifested constructs and he can make the rest of his allies immune as well. A psion has no powers to be immune to these. Having a complete defense against an entire type of spells/powers is not weak.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> There are actually quite a few spells, which psions do not have access to.
> 
> There are also some powers, which arcanists have no access to.
> Some of those are quite powerful, too (i.e. _Psychic Reformation_, _Psionic Restoration_, _Psionic Freedom of Movement_, etc).




The difference is that the Globe spells outright stop a large number of psionic powers. Defense is big in the game, especially in save or die type situations. Arcane casters have better defensive spells (except for AC boosting) and hence, can survive easier.

You seem to blow off defensive spells/powers as no big deal. That's an error. Defensive spells / power make / break the game.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, a disadvantage (if you can even call it that), that is about completely neglectable from 3rd level onwards.




Again not true. Multi-opponent area effect movement limiting spells easily change the course of battle and they even do so at high level. They can sometimes even result in TPK. This is huge, but you pretend that it is nothing.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> I would rather compare the swapping to the auto-level-scaling psions get. The sorcerer has a very limited form of upgrading spells (to higher versions, or something else; this is mostly to prevent sorcerers from avoiding low-level spells with caps, since they would then be stuck with those choices forever like in 3.0).
> 
> The psion gets this ability for free for (pretty much) all powers (except, of course, that the psion cannot change to a completely different power), there are very few powers for psions, which are completely useless later on, since there are (almost) no caps and many scale with the power level (can be augmented to higher versions). With a careful choice of powers (which sorcerers, even with the ability to swap one spell every other level, also have to do) this is no issue at all and overall even an advantage for the psion, since it works on the full breadth of their chosen powers, not just an extremely limited amount.
> 
> _Psychic Reformation_, while costing a power known, completely tops this ability by being able to rewrite almost your whole character (for a cost, of course).




Or anyone else's character for that matter.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> A bonus feat, no less. Psions do not get Scribe Scroll or an equivalent, but neither do sorcerers.
> 
> Being able to not obtain a familiar, which as I have read many arcane casters do (I don't know why, I like familiars, but still), is a big advantage for the psion. I guess, if you could swap the familiar for a bonus feat, many arcanists would do so.
> 
> We all know what makes the human such a powerful race. It's the bonus feat at 1st level!




If you say so. I rarely play a human.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Did you include all the augmentable powers, or only those with "mass" in their name?




Nope. Only the ones with Mass in their name. I also did not include the vast number of area effects spells. There are only a few area effect powers.

All in all, the edge in affecting more than one opponent goes to arcane casters.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Agreed. That is a huge disadvantage.
> 
> However, since their powers known are limited (as with the sorcerer), this disadvantage is not as big as it would be, if they were more akin to wizards (then it would be REALLY huge).
> 
> ...




The lists are different lengths though and one has a restriction and the other does not. Hence, a disadvantage. Not necessarily a huge disadvantage, but one nonetheless.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 24, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> A _quickened Energy Ray_ at maximum augmentation does the same as an _Energy Ray_ with maximum augmentation manifested via _Schism_, for example.




Actually, a Quickened Energy Ray does not do the same as a Schismed Energy Ray at maximum PP. It only does the same damage.

But, the quickened one has a range of 15 feet more and that can be a difference.


----------



## Thanee (May 24, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Range has been an issue in about one combat in three or four for both psions in our group since level one.
> 
> Looking at this on paper, I can see where people wouldn't think that it is a big deal. In an actual game though, it comes up.
> 
> It's a weakness, no doubt about it.




No kidding. I absolutely know that from my sorceress, who had only close range spells for a good while. But picking up one or two decent long range spell almost completely negated this. For me at least.  That's why I think it would be similar for a psion. And there are some really good medium/long range powers available early one already, which continue to be useful to higher levels. While a huge amount of long range spells is better, of course, I don't think the difference between having just a few and a large number is that big effectively. The advantage in choice is there, of course.



> There is a major difference between boosting a save by two and being hard or impossible to target by opponents.




Yes, that's right. I'd have to look through the power list to see, if they really have nothing in that area. 

Don't they have a power similar to _Gaseous Form_?



> Compared to Dominate Person where you do not have to concentrate on it and it lasts one day per level?
> 
> Granted, they errata-ed it, but Telepaths should have the advantage here and even with the errata, arcane casters have a duration advantage for a few levels.
> 
> ...




Oh, please. _Psionic Dominate_ is in almost all situations completely superior to _Dominate Person_.



> Here you are just incorrect. A prepared arcane caster can be immune to summoned monsters or manifested constructs and he can make the rest of his allies immune as well. A psion has no powers to be immune to these. Having a complete defense against an entire type of spells/powers is not weak.




_Protection from Evil_ only makes you immune to natural attacks from summoned creatures that fail to apply their spell resistance. That's hardly immunity. It provides no protection whatsoever against astral constructs, those are not summoned.



> Arcane casters have better defensive spells (except for AC boosting) and hence, can survive easier.




Ok.



> You seem to blow off defensive spells/powers as no big deal. That's an error. Defensive spells / power make / break the game.




No, I know how good defense is. I do not consider the globe spells to be that great, tho.

AC is also one of the most useful defensive boosts (along with being unable to get targeted, as you say, and spells/powers that grant a decent miss chance).

And being able to negate ability damage or being immune to grapple and movement hampering is also not to be underestimated.



> Again not true. Multi-opponent area effect movement limiting spells easily change the course of battle and they even do so at high level. They can sometimes even result in TPK. This is huge, but you pretend that it is nothing.




Here you were mixing something up. You replied to my answer to the 0th level spells. 



> If you say so. I rarely play a human.




Not just I, mostly everyone says (according to numerous threads and polls on this site at least), that humans are among the most powerful +0 LA races (dwarves, too, of course).



> All in all, the edge in affecting more than one opponent goes to arcane casters.




I'm really not sure about that one. The augmentable "mass" powers are generally way earlier useable, and most often you only need a few targets, anyways.

Arcanists have more choice, since there simply are more spells out there, but I wouldn't say that these choices really are better than what psionicists get.



> The lists are different lengths though and one has a restriction and the other does not. Hence, a disadvantage. Not necessarily a huge disadvantage, but one nonetheless.




Of course. There are many factors to consider.

That's why I always say, that comparing stuff like damage dice per day doesn't really show anything useful, because it justs looks at a rather small fraction of the whole picture. You need to (at least try) to look at the whole picture to get a decent idea of the overall power level.



Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 24, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, a Quickened Energy Ray does not do the same as a Schismed Energy Ray at maximum PP. It only does the same damage.




Yes, I was speaking of damage. Range/Duration and so on are factors, but they are only minor factors compared to the primary effect... damage, in this case.

It was just a random example, you could also pick one with medium or long range, then you have no issue at all with range, regardless of manifester level. 150+ ft. is more than enough, almost always.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nail (May 24, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A prepared arcane caster can be immune to summoned monsters ....



Check.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> or manifested constructs and he can make the rest of his allies immune as well.



Whaaaa?   Really?  Tell me how, exactly.  (Without using the "Globe of Invul." spells.  Those are weak and little used IME.)

Heck, list all of the ways a _non-psion_ can "be immune" to Astral Constructs.  I'd love to hear about it.  Really.

Astral Constructs have higher ACs, better abilities, and higher attack rolls than a similar summoned monster.  It is just flat out a superior power.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 24, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Whaaaa?   Really?  Tell me how, exactly.  (Without using the "Globe of Invul." spells.  Those are weak and little used IME.)
> 
> Heck, list all of the ways a _non-psion_ can "be immune" to Astral Constructs.  I'd love to hear about it.  Really.
> 
> Astral Constructs have higher ACs, better abilities, and higher attack rolls than a similar summoned monster.  It is just flat out a superior power.




So, there are two spells that makes the arcane spell caster and his allies totally immune to Astral Constructs. But, you don't think this is powerful or useful enough, so you need more ways for them to be immune?

On the other hand, psions have NO ways to be immune to the arcane Summoned Monster counterpart. But, you do not consider this a weakness?


----------



## Nail (May 24, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, there are two spells that makes the arcane spell caster and his allies totally immune to Astral Constructs. But, you don't think this is powerful or useful enough, so you need more ways for them to be immune?



Absolutely.  Summoned monster protections are simply stronger and easier, hands down.  

The globe spells have a _fundamental_ flaw: They are immobile.  As you (and many, many others) have argued countless times, mobility is key to a spell-caster's health.

...and you are arguing that all of the caster's allies need to cram themselves into an immobile 10'r globe as well?  That seems......sub-optimal.

You've played a psion, you've seen others in combat, and you may have read the Storyhours about Psions here on these boards: How many times have you actually seen a Globe spell used against a Psion?


----------



## Thanee (May 24, 2005)

Yep, that globe-argument really has a lot of flaws.

It _can be_ a great protection in the right situation, but that's only rarely the case.
And spellcasters are still more hindered by the globes than psions are.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nail (May 24, 2005)

...and really, I'm trying to think of ways to make it work.  I presently DM a Psi(shaper) 15....and the campaign has no house rules to speak of.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 24, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  Summoned monster protections are simply stronger and easier, hands down.
> 
> The globe spells have a _fundamental flaw: They are immobile.  As you (and many, many others) have argued countless times, mobility is key to a spell-caster's health.
> _



_

Only if he is not protected where he is. For example, a Wizard using Projected Image from a safe location would probably not want to be very mobile at that time.



			
				Nail said:
			
		


			...and you are arguing that all of the caster's allies need to cram themselves into an immobile 10'r globe as well?  That seems......sub-optimal.
		
Click to expand...



Well, that is 12 squares. Not exactly cramming if most area effect spells cannot get you.



			
				Nail said:
			
		


			You've played a psion, you've seen others in combat, and you may have read the Storyhours about Psions here on these boards: How many times have you actually seen a Globe spell used against a Psion?
		
Click to expand...



Never.

But, the fact that we rarely run into Wizards or Sorcerers in our game (our DM apparently does not want to take out the time to invest so much effort into creating one that we will wipe out in battle number one or battle number two) does not mean that the option is unavailable._


----------



## Thanee (May 24, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Never.
> 
> But, the fact that we rarely run into Wizards or Sorcerers in our game (our DM apparently does not want to take out the time to invest so much effort into creating one that we will wipe out in battle number one or battle number two) does not mean that the option is unavailable.




Your party is also 7th level still, right? Then globes are barely available in the lesser version.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nail (May 24, 2005)

Let me just interject this: I really am here for discussion, and I do appreciate what you bring to the table, KarinsDad.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Only if he is not protected where he is. For example, a Wizard using Projected Image from a safe location would probably not want to be very mobile at that time.



Err?   Project Image is used even less than the Globes IME.  YMMV, of course.  Still, I'm not sure it's kosher to bring in yet another spell to bolster the supposed Astral-Construct-Immunity spell.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Well, that is 12 squares. Not exactly cramming if most area effect spells cannot get you.



Uhmmmm?  Being in a 10' radius virtually assures that you will be a target of an AoE spell.  Are you claiming that there are no such spells above 3rd (or 4th) level?  

The Globe spells are not memorized because they are weak.

Even so: is there some other defence against Astral Constructs that is comparable to Protection/Evil?   That would be: 1st level spell, mobile, lasts 1 min/level.

Answer: Nope.  Not even close.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Never.
> 
> But, the fact that we rarely run into Wizards or Sorcerers in our game (our DM apparently does not want to take out the time to invest so much effort into creating one that we will wipe out in battle number one or battle number two) does not mean that the option is unavailable.



I'm sorry your DM doesn't do that.  BTW, when one of my groups went through the 4th thru 7th level range, I didn't hit them with many Sor/Wiz either.  It's not a "sweet-spot" for them, as NPC enemies.

Like you, I've not seen Globes used against psions.  Ever.  That should tell you something.


----------



## DreamChaser (May 24, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Oh, please. Psionic Dominate is in almost all situations completely superior to Dominate Person.




This is the part that would traditionally be followed by the word "because..." and then an explanation.

Really, I love debate but flinging unsupported statements around does not make a debate.  I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure (about the Dominate issue, not about psions as a whole so far).

DC


----------



## Nail (May 24, 2005)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> This is the part that would traditionally be followed by the word "because..." and then an explanation.



As a guess I would say "the incredible flexibility"!

It starts as a 4th level power, but can grow to whatever you have the inclination and capacity for.

Strangely enough, our party's psion doesn't go for this type of power.


----------



## DreamChaser (May 24, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> As a guess I would say "the incredible flexibility"!
> 
> It starts as a 4th level power, but can grow to whatever you have the inclination and capacity for.
> 
> Strangely enough, our party's psion doesn't go for this type of power.




so the reason it is too powerful is the very foundation of the entire system of psionics:

whereas casters gain higher level spells that do the same things as lower level spells only with increased effect, the psionic classes have powers that can be scaled to increase their effect with greater effort.

whereas wizards have an unlimited number of spells known and sorcerers can swap out spells that have become obsolete for newer, more powerful versions, psionic classes are stuck with their limited power selection.


so, ultimately, when one omits the problem power of Energy Missile (which may be similar to 3.0 Haste in the extreme polarity of opinion), *would it be fair to say that one concern with psionics is that they are versatile to the point of unpredictability?*  That as a DM it is hard to know what to send against them because they might be able blow through their power points and overwhelm the challenge?  

I believe that this is a valid concern.  *As a DM it can be a great deal of work to keep things challenging for the characters and when coming from the core classes, the psionic classes end up feeling like power creep.*

*I would argue that rather than power creep, what the psionic classes are is a paradigm shift.    *It is not unlike the change that needs to occur if you have a party without a cleric.  Suddenly, what seemed like a reasonable combat encounter is deadly.  Or a party without a rogue: do you stop using traps or do you give them more resources to help them survive them?

The psionic classes require a shift toward making sure that an enemy can survive a straight on blast.  Perhaps going with things to increase touch armor class.  This may seem like metagaming but it's not really.  In a world where wilders run around wild surging with Energy Rays at 1st level dealing 2d6+2 damage, the wise bad guy is going to prepare for that possiblity.

Early on I said that in my experience, people who like the idea of psionics are more likely to see them as balanced and those who do not are less likely to.  I still believe that.  *Within the shades of gray though, I think that, as I said above, psionics will be, by their nature, unbalanced if you approach them as being the same thing as magic (arcane or divine) because the systems are different.*  Just like you cannot treat a wizard and a rogue the same.  Their strengths and weaknesses are different.

If I were not willing to adjust my tactics and thinking for psionics (because I like them) I would not use them.  Since I am willing to adjust my tactics and thinking, they work fine and do not unbalance the game in the slightest.

And before anyone tries to put words in my mouth, *I'm not saying I have changed the structure of my game.  *My sessions tend to be 60% roleplaying, 30% mysteries and puzzles, and 10% combat.  This has been the case for the last 5 years at least.  It is the structure that I and my gamers prefer.  What has changed is the way that I plan the encounters.  I had a psion with Dimension Leap in my game.  I needed to be sure that there was no way of seeing (gaining line of sight to) the inside of any locked room that I wanted to stay locked.  Just like when I have a cleric with Detect Lie or a wizard with Detect Thoughts, I know that deception needs to be planned out and perhaps not the key to unlocking the entire story, otherwise a single spell would end the session after 20 minutes.

DC


----------



## Dracomeander (May 24, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Strangely enough, our party's psion doesn't go for this type of power.




Your party's psion is a shaper. He has other powers to concentrate on. Dominate is a telepath only power. The earliest a non-telepath psion can think of acquiring it is by spending an expanded knowledge feat for it at 9th level.

I have two psions I am currently playing and neither of them will pick up dominate. The primary one is in an ECL 15 party. He is a Kineticist 10/ Elocator 2 and is just starting to encounter foes where he believes the kineticist power Control Body will be useful. (Most effective way to neutralize an enemy spellcaster and his fighter bodyguard temporarily is force the spellcaster to attack the bodyguard.) The +3 LA for him comes from the half-dragon template that got slapped on him through campaign circumstances. Didn't like it at the time but has learned to live with it.

The other is still a low level party, ECL 5, and is a Bard 2/ Nomad 3. This character is working toward Shadow Mind from Complete Adventurer. He will probably pick up a couple of telepath powers with expanded knowledge, but Dominate is not one of them. His concentrations are on mobility and information gathering not overt control.


----------



## Nail (May 24, 2005)

Interesting.

Stepping away from the debate for a moment: Our party's psion is played by an excellent player......so I must admit if anyone can find a way to make a powerful character, it'd be him.  Currently he's in a party with both a Wiz, a Sor, and a Drd so the comparisons are easy.  When I play (rather than DM), I'm the cleric.  Again, comparisons with other "magic"-users are very easy, and from both the DM and players sides.

The Psion was added to our party at level ~7.  We're now level ~15.  

I've been DMing the party through the 4th level of Maure castle (Dungeon magazine adventure, FWIW).  Very tough stuff; everyone has died multiple times....except the psion.  He's never died.  He's never run out of power points during a fight.  He's never been the first PC to say "Let's get outta here, I need a recharge".

You can see how my preceptions of Psions is being shaped (Truth in advertising).  

A common phrase from the other players around the table: "Oh no...psions aren't at all over-powered."


----------



## Thanee (May 24, 2005)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> This is the part that would traditionally be followed by the word "because..." and then an explanation.




Sorry, I thought it was obvious enough. 



> If you spend *2 additional power points*, this power can also affect an *animal, fey, giant, magical beast, or monstrous humanoid*.
> 
> If you spend *4 additional power points*, this power can also affect an *aberration, dragon, elemental, or outsider* in addition to the creature types mentioned above.
> 
> ...




Highlighted the most important parts. Do you still need any more explanation?

The only situation, when _Dominate Person_ is actually better is, when you need to up the duration to 1 day per level (the power then becomes a 6th level equivalent with 11 PP) *and* the target is humanoid.

In 90+% of the situations, _Psionic Dominate_ will completely blow that spell away.

For only 1 PP you can change the quite bad concentration duration to 1h, which is more than enough for a lot of applications. For 2 PP you get 1 day, which will suffice for pretty much everything else. Only if you really need 1 day/level, the arcane version has an edge (but how often does that really happen? It's convenient, but almost never necessary... and the option is there, nonetheless, just slightly more expensive, which does not even remotely balance how much cheaper this power is than _Dominate Monster_ in a huge number of situations).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dracomeander (May 24, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> Stepping away from the debate for a moment: Our party's psion is played by an excellent player......so I must admit if anyone can find a way to make a powerful character, it'd be him.  Currently he's in a party with both a Wiz, a Sor, and a Drd so the comparisons are easy.  When I play (rather than DM), I'm the cleric.  Again, comparisons with other "magic"-users are very easy, and from both the DM and players sides.
> 
> ...




Is that character's survival due to him being a psion or to him being an excellent player? How do his characters do when he plays another type of character?

In the groups I game with this phenomenon is seen frequently as the players like myself who are seen to be better survive encounters that the other do not. More often than not, it is due to the nature of the player than the class. 

IME, I find the fighter/melee specialists to be the most vulnerable to frequent character death compared to other classes irregardless of player competance simply because they put themselves in harm's way more often. Survivability of the other classes seems to be more heavily weighted toward play style and player competance.


----------



## Thanee (May 24, 2005)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> so the reason it is too powerful is the very foundation of the entire system of psionics:
> 
> whereas casters gain higher level spells that do the same things as lower level spells only with increased effect, the psionic classes have powers that can be scaled to increase their effect with greater effort.




That's not the problem. The problem is... that they can take micro-steps with the augmentation.

They do not need to wait until 17th or 18th level, they can use the power against *everything* at 12th level already, at 10th they can already affect a large amount of targets.

That is the problem (in this specific case, but it's certainly not the only one).


Or in more general words:

The flexibility psions gain is simply too high and not compensated for entirely.

Augmentation costs are the right way to balance that (I actually like the general idea of the augmentation system, just in case, that hasn't been noticed ), but they simply went over the top when piling options on them. The limited power list (as compared to the broad arcane spell list) likewise is not enough. And they made the horrible mistake of basing the psion mostly on the wizard when building the class (standard power level progression, mostly 2 new powers per level, bonus feats, Int as manifester ability, etc), because the psion simply does not work like the wizard.

There are simply too many options and too few restrictions for them!

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nail (May 24, 2005)

Dracomeander said:
			
		

> Is that character's survival due to him being a psion or to him being an excellent player? How do his characters do when he plays another type of character?



A good question.

Answer: In my other game, this player led the death-pool with non-psion classes.    So, although he is a great player, and his tactics are sound (and his RP is good too, BTW), it has more to do with the class, IMHO.


----------



## Nail (May 24, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> That's not the problem. The problem is... that they can take micro-steps with the augmentation.



Ooooo, good call.


----------



## DreamChaser (May 25, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> That's not the problem. The problem is... that they can take micro-steps with the augmentation.




I see the point you're trying to make, but I don't agree that it is the egregious balance issue that you claim.  Again, it is the point of the system.  They have flexibility but not unmanagable levels of it.  You can predict what they can do, it requires a full round to cast.  It has a save and PR.

But clearly, we disagree.  I feel that Dominate is a powerful power but not unbalancingly so.  Same with Energy Missile.  But even for those who do feel that these 2 (TWO, Dos, Duex) or 5 (assuming there are others that have some issues), that is not a problem with psionics.  That is a problem with those powers.

I challenge someone to argue how psionics are unbalanced without bringing those powers into play.  A system is unbalanced when it can be abused by the majority of the items within it, not when a few outstanding powers are abusable.  Individual powers can be house ruled.  Biocurrent was like that in 3.0 for me: absurdly over powered.  I didn't throw out the system (until 3.5) I altered the power.

DC


----------



## KarinsDad (May 25, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Your party is also 7th level still, right? Then globes are barely available in the lesser version.




Actually, we are 8th level.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 25, 2005)

I'm rather surprised that the discussion--which was initially the balance of psionics in general--has come down to just psion vs. sorceror or psion vs. wizard.

The 3.0 haste example is a good one. The 3.5 change didn't just affect casters who could no longer pump out two spells per round. It also had a big impact on melee fighters who could no longer partial charge+full attack. (In fact, it was that ability that my wizard used it for most often in 3.0 since tripling the power of our 6th-7th level fighters didn't use up my other spells). Psions with schism have some of the spellcasting power provided by 3.0 haste. What is less noted, however, is that psiwarriors (and illithid slayers and warminds if a PC can figure a way to get into those classes without psiwarrior levels) re-introduce the melee version of 3.0 haste with hustle and psionic lion's charge. Especially at high levels, the difference between being able to make a full attack and being limited to standard attack is tremendous. Now, Scion and I have had this out previously comparing the psywar to the fighter class and I still think that those two classes are at least in the same ballpark (barring absurd abusiveness like the skin of the proteus). However, the real difference is not going to be between the Fighter 20 and the PsyWar 20. Instead, it's between the fighter 12/PsyWar 4/Warmind 4 or the Fighter 6/Warmind 10 (who somehow talked his DM into Knowledge Psionics as a class skill) and the fighter 20. Even the fighter 16/Psy War 4 gains a huge advantage by being able to make a full attack after moving--so much of one, that I would expect nearly every fighter build in a world with psionics to inlcude some way to get either hustle or psionic lion's charge or a similar ability. [Even if it's only once or twice per day, it's still worth it].


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 25, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Even the fighter 16/Psy War 4 gains a huge advantage by being able to make a full attack after moving--so much of one, that I would expect nearly every fighter build in a world with psionics to inlcude some way to get either hustle or psionic lion's charge or a similar ability. [Even if it's only once or twice per day, it's still worth it].




The Savage Species version is a Drd1, Sor/Wiz2 spell with a min/level duration.

That's 50gp in potion form.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 25, 2005)

Dracomeander said:
			
		

> Is that character's survival due to him being a psion or to him being an excellent player? How do his characters do when he plays another type of character?
> 
> In the groups I game with this phenomenon is seen frequently as the players like myself who are seen to be better survive encounters that the other do not. More often than not, it is due to the nature of the player than the class.
> 
> IME, I find the fighter/melee specialists to be the most vulnerable to frequent character death compared to other classes irregardless of player competance simply because they put themselves in harm's way more often. Survivability of the other classes seems to be more heavily weighted toward play style and player competance.




I concur with this.

In our group so far, the Psion 5 / Fighter 2 / Elocater 1 (BAB 4) has died once. He has gone unconscious about once or twice per level. He is played by a tactically smart player, but he is playing him as a fighter type, hence he gets overwhelmed on occasion.

The Ranger 5 / Rogue 3 (BAB 7) for the first four levels or so used to go unconscious nearly every battle. The running joke about his character was "Fine time to take a nap" for the longest time. Although that has slowed up considerably, he is almost always seriously injured at the end of combat, even though he has the best AC in the group (shy of my psion buffing herself through the stratosphere which has only happened twice). He is play by a tactically not so smart player (and it shows).

The Cleric 5 / Monk 2 / Sacred Fist 1 (BAB 5) rarely goes unconscious, but also rarely contributes to a fight other than an occasional party buff spell and a lot of cure spells. Even when she attacks, she is fairly ineffective. She has the lowest AC in the party by 4, but does not go unconscious often due to playing style (i.e. you will almost never find her in a one on one fight). Since she avoids combat and hangs back a lot, she survives a lot. I'm hoping that the +1 BAB per level of Sacred Fist will make her more effective in combat in the future, but I'm not holding my breath.

My Psion 8 (BAB 4) has gone unconscious once. I too play my psion as a fighter type. And, she averages more melee damage per combat than anyone else in the group at the moment (she did not outaverage the Ranger/Barbarian Shifter who left the group). And, I think she stays conscious because I play her intelligently, but that could be my personal bias.

We have had four other PCs in the group since first level (two played by the current DM when I was DMing, one played by a player who left the group due to over commitments and the last played by a player who left the group when he broke his neck in a freak scuba diving accident). All of these PCs have gone unconscious on multiple occasions and one of the two played by the other DM died.

But as can be seen, the other psion has not been as fortunate as my psion. Part of that may be because he multi-classed and is a power level behind. But, part of it is choice of powers and part of it is playing style.


PS. We have a "heal within a round" rule. If you go below -9 and are healed up to -9 within a round, you are still alive. So, although the Ranger has not died yet, he would have repeatedly died without this house rule. In fact, he went to -34 just this last Sunday and was very lucky that 6 of that was non-lethal damage and that the Cleric was close enough to heal him for 21 points (i.e. he went up to -7) within the round.


----------



## Thanee (May 25, 2005)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> Again, it is the point of the system.




While true, that doesn't make the mentioned problem go away. The "micro-steps" allow effects of much higher levels than you should have at the time, by leaving out unnecessary parts. That's a general problem with the augmentation system, not with individual powers only.



> I challenge someone to argue how psionics are unbalanced without bringing those powers into play.




Hey, I'm doing that all the time. Look at the earlier posts in this thread. I usually tend to stay away from examples and look at the overall mechanics and such. I specifically compare spellcasting/manifestation power by spell/power level and caster/manifester level and slots/PP only, not by adding up damage dice with a single spell/power or stuff like that. And I look at the benefits the classes offer apart from their casting/manifesting abilities, and also all the small benefits and hindrances, which come along with it.



> A system is unbalanced when it can be abused by the majority of the items within it, not when a few outstanding powers are abusable.  Individual powers can be house ruled.




I totally agree, actually. There are broken spells, too.

It's not individual powers, but mostly the psion class as a whole (not even so much the psionic system, while it has some flaws, too, like the "micro-steps" thing, but rather that class), which I consider unbalanced with the core rules.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 25, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, we are 8th level.




Ah, then you leveled up since the last time you mentioned that... congratulations! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nifft (May 25, 2005)

I'm currently playing a by-the-book Psion (Telepath, human) _and_ a Cleric (Boccob, Magic & Trickery, started as an elf and got reincarnated as a bugbear), in RttToEE.

I'll let y'all know which one seems overpowered.

 -- N


----------



## Thanee (May 25, 2005)

Nifft said:
			
		

> ...started as an elf and got reincarnated as a bugbear...




Nice for the stats, but otherwise... ouch! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nail (May 25, 2005)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'm currently playing a by-the-book Psion (Telepath, human) _and_ a Cleric (Boccob, Magic & Trickery, started as an elf and got reincarnated as a bugbear), in RttToEE.
> 
> I'll let y'all know which one seems overpowered.



Very cool, Nifft!  Keep us posted.....what a meat-grinder adventurer!


----------



## Nail (May 25, 2005)

Dracomeander said:
			
		

> IME, I find the fighter/melee specialists to be the most vulnerable to frequent character death compared to other classes irregardless of player competance simply because they put themselves in harm's way more often. Survivability of the other classes seems to be more heavily weighted toward play style and player competance.



Sure...which is why I'm comparing my Clr to our Psi, and our party's Wiz and the Sor to the Psi.  It's as close to apples-to-apples comparison as I can get, really.

Although really: I'm tempted to play a psion myself to prove the point.  Very tempted.


----------



## Dracomeander (May 25, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Although really: I'm tempted to play a psion myself to prove the point.  Very tempted.




I think that would be a good idea. That will give you a better idea of the weaknesses and strengths of the psion.

The psion seems to be stronger and in certain cases they can be but not consistently.

After playing several wizards and psions in the new rule set, the one thing that I find to be consistent with the way I build characters isn't that the psion is stronger than the wizard, but he is more self-reliant than the wizard. That is they both affect the enemy to approximately the same degree, but the psion requires fewer of the party's resources to recover afterward.


----------



## DreamChaser (May 25, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> It's not individual powers, but mostly the psion class as a whole (not even so much the psionic system, while it has some flaws, too, like the "micro-steps" thing, but rather that class), which I consider unbalanced with the core rules.



So how do you feel the psion class would be better balanced?  What would you do?  Or what class should be created to better balance the system?

DC


----------



## Thanee (May 25, 2005)

Apart from fixing the powers, which have the biggest discrepancies (i.e. no +1 DC/+1 PP powers, _Dispel Psionics_ has to be augmented from 5 onwards, _Psionic Dominate_ may not allow to mimic _Dominate Monster_ before 15th/16th level, _Energy Missile_ has no extra targets, but can be augmented for one additional target per +2 PP (max 5), all Energy Powers have one fixed energy type, which is chosen when the power is learned; a feat to alter that would then have to be added, similar to Energy Substitution), and removing the feats and powers, which really should not exist (Metamorphic Transfer, probably also Overchannel, Quicken Power and _Schism_), I would mostly make their power progression more akin to the sorcerer's and give them both, Cha and Int as caster abilities (Cha for DC, Int for PP).

However, I would also make some of the feats, that require Psionic Focus (mainly Power Penetration and Psionic Endowment), more useful, by having them work while the character is psionically focused without expending the focus (and putting their effect in line with the spellcasting feats... +2/+4 against PR/SR and +1 DC to a single discipline).

Expanding the power list in some really lacking areas might also be a good idea. 

Something like that.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nail (May 25, 2005)

Dracomeander said:
			
		

> ...but the psion requires fewer of the party's resources to recover afterward.



Heh, heh.    I get to see _that_ as things are now!


----------



## DreamChaser (May 25, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Apart from fixing the powers, which have the biggest discrepancies (i.e. no +1 DC/+1 PP powers, _Dispel Psionics_ has to be augmented from 5 onwards, _Psionic Dominate_ may not allow to mimic _Dominate Monster_ before 15th/16th level, _Energy Missile_ has no extra targets, but can be augmented for one additional target per +2 PP (max 5), all Energy Powers have one fixed energy type, which is chosen when the power is learned; a feat to alter that would then have to be added, similar to Energy Substitution), and removing the feats and powers, which really should not exist (Metamorphic Transfer, probably also Overchannel, Quicken Power and _Schism_), I would mostly make their power progression more akin to the sorcerer's and give them both, Cha and Int as caster abilities (Cha for DC, Int for PP).
> 
> However, I would also make some of the feats, that require Psionic Focus (mainly Power Penetration and Psionic Endowment), more useful, by having them work while the character is psionically focused without expending the focus (and putting their effect in line with the spellcasting feats... +2/+4 against PR/SR and +1 DC to a single discipline).



Interesting.  You and I really do view things very differently.  I personally would not want to play the class you have described and feel it would be both too weak (especially with the mixed stat dependency) and too similar to the magic system and thus it would defeat the point (in my opinion) of making a separate system.

I would rather have all the energy powers scaled back to 1d4 base with free reign of energy type than have the free reign taken away.

Just my thoughts.  Not something we'll likely find consensus on.

DC


----------



## Thanee (May 25, 2005)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> I personally would not want to play the class you have described and feel it would be both too weak




A logical conclusion, if you consider them balanced with sorcerers and wizards (and the core rules in general) as is. 



> (especially with the mixed stat dependency)




I don't think that this is so bad as it sounds. It's just a fairly easy way to put a limit on their options (see above), I think.



> ...and too similar to the magic system and thus it would defeat the point (in my opinion) of making a separate system.




This I do not understand. In what way would that be too similar to the magic system?



> Just my thoughts.  Not something we'll likely find consensus on.




Heh. That might be. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 26, 2005)

But it's not generally effective in potion form. 

Any reasonable cost potions will have a duration of one to six minutes--which is short enough that they will only be available as a pre-buff when you know you're attacking in the next few rounds. To use them in an unexpected combat or one that is not anticipated down to 30 seconds of or so of its start means using a move action and a standard action in the first round of combat. 

It's still worth it for some characters, but, for the majority of melee characters in the majority of situations, it actually makes them _less_ effective rather than more since they would otherwise move and attack in that round then make a full attack in the next round instead of drinking a potion then making a full attack charge. The power of the psionic versions lies in the fact that they're swift actions and therefore can be used to move/charge+full attack in the first round of any combat.
In a combat without round/level buffs active:
Round 1:
Potion= no attacks
Nothing=move + single attack
Psi power=move/charge + full attack

Round 2:
Potion=charge+full attack
Nothing=full attack
Psi power=full attack (or use the power again to move and full attack someone else, but that gets cost prohibitive quickly for characters with only a few psiwar levels).



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The Savage Species version is a Drd1, Sor/Wiz2 spell with a min/level duration.
> 
> That's 50gp in potion form.
> 
> -Hyp.


----------



## The Iron Mark (May 26, 2005)

Myth: The XPH is Overpowered

That's all I have to say about this.


----------



## Nifft (May 26, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Very cool, Nifft!  Keep us posted.....what a meat-grinder adventurer!




...and I'm playing with a DM who takes NPC losses personally, it seems. :roll-freekin'-eyes:

 -- N


----------



## Thanee (May 26, 2005)

The Iron Mark said:
			
		

> That's all I have to say about this.




That's not a whole lot. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nail (May 26, 2005)

The Iron Mark said:
			
		

> Myth: The XPH is Overpowered
> 
> That's all I have to say about this.



 
Ooooh, a helpful post.


----------



## Vurt (May 26, 2005)

Been following this thread fairly regularly, mulling over all the ideas presented, but still haven't come to a decision one way or another regarding the pwnage of the psion.

I suspect much of the conflict stems from the kineticist really stepping on the sorcerer's toes, handily taking over as the king "blaster" class.  I've known some players who really enjoy dishing out the damage, and ever since it's introduction, that's the niche I constantly see the sorcerer filling.  Now he has to compete with the kineticist and, to a lesser extent, the warmage.

My gut feeling tells me that, one way or another,  it's all about the spell list.  What is and what isn't available, and to a lesser degree, when.  You could easily argue the sorcerer and cleric aren't balanced against each other if you didn't take their spells into account.  But that's exactly where the difficulty lies.  Assigning spells some form of value is really campaign dependant, and some form of consensus can only be reached after serious playtesting.

That said, in the campaigns I have run I have found that powers can be super easy to tweak if they get out of hand, simply by messing around with augmentation costs.  For example, _energy missile_'s save DC increase should clearly go up 1 for every 2 pp spent, just like everything else in the XPH.  To me, that's clearly just errata that hasn't made print yet.

Similarly, if the Expanded Knowledge feat is generating too much abuse, scratch out the line that says you can take it multiple times to pick up different powers.  Then the decision becomes something more along the lines of "Should I take this at 5th for _energy missile_, or wait until 12th for _psionic teleport_?"

What I really like most about the psionic system is arguably the flavor text.  _Mindwipe _temporarily erasing memories and abilities just reads way cooler than _enervation_, even though it does pretty much the same thing.  But I also realize that if powers were simply renamed and reflavoured spells, most folks would simply say, "What's the point?" and would feel somewhat cheated for shelling out good $$$ for the book.  As it stands now, far from being perfect, I do find using the XPH rather fun.

Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> What is less noted, however, is that psiwarriors (and illithid slayers and warminds if a PC can figure a way to get into those classes without psiwarrior levels) re-introduce the melee version of 3.0 haste with hustle and psionic lion's charge. Especially at high levels, the difference between being able to make a full attack and being limited to standard attack is tremendous.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




I think you are blowing a few extra full round attacks per day WAY out of proportion for four reasons:

1) A fourth level Psychic Warrior can only do this 2 or 3 times per day (unless he has a Wisdom of 18 where he could do it 4 times per day).

2) He had to give up +1 BAB for ALL attacks in order to do this (compared to the same level Fighter) which also means that he is pushing back at which levels he can gat iterative attacks.

3) A fourth level Psychic Warrior cannot get iterative attacks until higher level. So, unless he is using the full round attack for a special feat or ability, the earliest this tactic can be used is 7th level.

4) Full Round Attack (if used for iterative attacks) results in the second attack being at -5 to hit, the third attack at -10 to hit, etc. Hence, a full round attack is effectively only worth a single extra attack if you have 3 or more of them, and worth less than that if you have 2. Effectively it is equivalent to a single Attack of Opportunity.


So, in order to gain 2 to 3 additional set of attacks per day at -5, -10, -15, etc. (or 2 to 3 additional full round attacks per day if you use them for something special like Whirlwind), the Psychic Warrior/Fighter compared to the straight Fighter has to push back a level when he gets iterative attacks at all (i.e. 2 attacks at level 7 instead of level 6, 3 attacks at level 12 instead of 11, etc.). Plus, he loses 1 BAB for all of his attacks. Plus, if he is using his PP for this, he is not using them for something else.

If he attempts to increase his PP by taking more levels of Psychic Warrior, he drops his BAB even more and pushes back iterative attacks even more levels.


This is an EXTREMELY minor ability. Combat Reflexes is more uber than this and does not have the BAB downside. This is not unbalanced at all.


----------



## Shadowdweller (May 27, 2005)

> What I really like most about the psionic system is arguably the flavor text. Mindwipe temporarily erasing memories and abilities just reads way cooler than enervation, even though it does pretty much the same thing. But I also realize that if powers were simply renamed and reflavoured spells, most folks would simply say, "What's the point?" and would feel somewhat cheated for shelling out good $$$ for the book. As it stands now, far from being perfect, I do find using the XPH rather fun.



 It's funny you say that.  I personally think that the psion, as is, already has WAAAAY too many powers that are uncreative and formulaic.

I'd much rather have the occasionally abusive power that is open ended...say like Stone Shape for instance....than something that is a rigid +2 or WHATEVER bonus to some ability.  Hurray, flavor text says Mindwipe causes negative levels by erasing memory.  I'd rather have something instead that encourages creativity on the part of the user.  (Example:  Delusion: Telepathy, [Mind-affecting] Psion 6 or 7...would cause victim to have some fictitious belief for 1 round/level...with some limitations.)

Which, granted, there ARE some of in the PsiHB.  But not nearly enough IMHO.


----------



## Vurt (May 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> It's funny you say that. I personally think that the psion, as is, already has WAAAAY too many powers that are uncreative and formulaic.




Well sure, in this case clearly the more colourful flavour text the better.  Perhaps a good chunk of it got lopped off to fit the page-count, who knows.  I'm not sure about the idea of having zero overlap between powers and spells, though.  One thing I have never allowed in my campaigns is the free use of spells from the various Complete books, particularly because I can't keep track of what they all do.  As such, I'm actually quite happy that there's a fair bit of overlap between the various spells and powers in the XPH, as it's less I have to remember.



> I'd much rather have the occasionally abusive power that is open ended...say like Stone Shape for instance....than something that is a rigid +2 or WHATEVER bonus to some ability. Hurray, flavor text says Mindwipe causes negative levels by erasing memory. I'd rather have something instead that encourages creativity on the part of the user. (Example: Delusion: Telepathy, [Mind-affecting] Psion 6 or 7...would cause victim to have some fictitious belief for 1 round/level...with some limitations.)
> 
> Which, granted, there ARE some of in the PsiHB.  But not nearly enough IMHO.




_False sensory input_ (Telepath 3), and _Psionic modify memory_ (Telepath 4) may be something of what you're looking for.  I do love the telepathy powers simply because they really do require you to be creative.  Sadly, not all my players are going to deal well with the open-endedness of that, however.  For some of them, the rigid +2 to some ability is going to be good enough.  But I totally agree, psionics has the potential to be very different, ultimately not in the way things are handled, but simply in how they are described.  Yes, someone casting _magic missile_ can describe it as summoning forth a pair of pulsing black daggers, and sending them forth with a casual flick of the wrist to unerringly plunge into the victim,  but it is rare that anyone actually goes to the trouble.  Everyone has seen _magic missile_ hundreds of times already, and the extra effort just isn't taken.  Now with _crystal shard_, however...  A new system encourages a fresh perspective.

And I agree, I do wish there was more of it.  But something is better than nothing, in this case.

Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## Shadowdweller (May 27, 2005)

Vurt said:
			
		

> Yes, someone casting magic missile can describe it as summoning forth a pair of pulsing black daggers, and sending them forth with a casual flick of the wrist to unerringly plunge into the victim, but it is rare that anyone actually goes to the trouble. Everyone has seen magic missile hundreds of times already, and the extra effort just isn't taken.




Hmm.  Apologies if what I said was confusing.  But I don't think you quite got the heart of what I was saying.

Please allow me to clarify:


			
				Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> [Sarcasm]Hurray, flavor text says Mindwipe causes negative levels by erasing memory.  [/Sarcasm] I'd rather have something instead that encourages creativity on the part of the user.



 That is to say, creativity based on versatile, open-ended, and thematically appropriate spells rather than rigid numerical mechanics and different discriptions/explanations for identical effects.


----------



## Psion (May 28, 2005)

Dracomeander said:
			
		

> Is that character's survival due to him being a psion or to him being an excellent player? How do his characters do when he plays another type of character?
> 
> In the groups I game with this phenomenon is seen frequently as the players like myself who are seen to be better survive encounters that the other do not. More often than not, it is due to the nature of the player than the class.
> 
> IME, I find the fighter/melee specialists to be the most vulnerable to frequent character death compared to other classes irregardless of player competance simply because they put themselves in harm's way more often. Survivability of the other classes seems to be more heavily weighted toward play style and player competance.




I find wizards/psions _PLENTY_ vulnerable. For one reason: their HP total.

I think you are correct tha melee types necessarily put themselves in harms way and are always "playing the odds" as it were.

But against oponents with good strategy (which can be a player or GM factor), taking a little effort to take out the enemy's "heavy artillery" goes a long ways, becaus their HP total and AC are typiclly so low.

If you have a psion that never really gets hurt, might I suggest that the DM is the weakest link?

Goodbye.


----------



## Dracomeander (May 28, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I find wizards/psions _PLENTY_ vulnerable. For one reason: their HP total.
> 
> I think you are correct tha melee types necessarily put themselves in harms way and are always "playing the odds" as it were.
> 
> ...




You missed the point. I did not say that wizards/psions were not vulnerable. Only that play style and player competance have a greater factor in their survival. 

My psions and wizards get hurt, but they always have a way to escape and heal while continuing the combat. And they generally have better protection from the enemy's artillerist than the melee specialists.

However, no character is capable of continuously avoiding an orchestrated effort to take him out without help from an outside source like a teammate. If a DM wants to focus all his efforts towards removing my character, that leaves openings for the rest of the team to deal with the problem. 

I have actually had my character taunt an opponent that was beyond my character's ability to defeat just to get them to focus on my character and bring them into range of my teammates' weapons. It was a painful but calculated tactic. I estimated that my teammates would be able to defeat the opponent before the opponent could kill my character and was proved correct.


----------



## Psion (May 28, 2005)

Dracomeander said:
			
		

> You missed the point. I did not say that wizards/psions were not vulnerable. Only that play style and player competance have a greater factor in their survival.




Which is not so far off of what I was saying.

Do not assume that just because I am replying to you it's a rebuttal. It may just have been a good place to insert my own point.


----------



## Nail (May 31, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I find wizards/psions _PLENTY_ vulnerable. For one reason: their HP total.



Unless they've taken steps to remove that vulnerability.  Psions are _especially_ good at doing that.



> If you have a psion that never really gets hurt, might I suggest that the DM is the weakest link?



You might.  In some games, I'm sure that's the issue.  In my games, it's not.
 


ECIT: Nice avatar, Psion!


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 1, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I think you are blowing a few extra full round attacks per day WAY out of proportion for four reasons:
> 
> 1) A fourth level Psychic Warrior can only do this 2 or 3 times per day (unless he has a Wisdom of 18 where he could do it 4 times per day).
> 
> ...




I assume you've heard of Haste and Two Weapon Fighting. (Though haste is obviously the more optimal of the two).



> 4) Full Round Attack (if used for iterative attacks) results in the second attack being at -5 to hit, the third attack at -10 to hit, etc. Hence, a full round attack is effectively only worth a single extra attack if you have 3 or more of them, and worth less than that if you have 2.




The reality is far more complex than this. If you add haste attacks into the equation (as you should), the full round attack is already dealing twice as much damage on average as a single attack. However, the effect of -5 and -10 to hit is usually -25% and -50% to hit respectively. Thus, if one assumes that the primary attack has a 100% chance of hitting, the secondary and tertiary attacks together will usually deal 125% of the primary--in other words, the secondary attacks are worth 1 extra primary attack as soon as you have two of them and a haste attack is worth another attack right there. (And most fighters will have some way of getting a haste attack by level 12--either boots of speed, bracers of the swift strike, a party wizard, a weapon of speed, or something).

And, of course, the odds of hitting at all effect the equation. If a secondary attack hits on anything less than a 6, it's worth more than that. (And that's not an infrequent occurence for powerful and well supported melee characters). And, if the primary attack is extremely unlikely to hit, secondary attacks are also worth more than that. If the primary attack has a 75% chance to hit (probably a fair assumption) then the next two attacks (at 50% and 25% odds respectively) will deal exactly as much average damage per round as the first.



> Effectively it is equivalent to a single Attack of Opportunity.




Except that you can take it on your own turn, it doesn't use up AoOs and you get to choose who you attack with the extra attacks in a full attack action.  Then again, an ability that lets you take a nearly guaranteed attack of opportunity every round would be quite powerful too. (Rogues can get it at 10th level but not before).



> So, in order to gain 2 to 3 additional set of attacks per day at -5, -10, -15, etc. (or 2 to 3 additional full round attacks per day if you use them for something special like Whirlwind), the Psychic Warrior/Fighter compared to the straight Fighter has to push back a level when he gets iterative attacks at all (i.e. 2 attacks at level 7 instead of level 6, 3 attacks at level 12 instead of 11, etc.).




And just a moment ago, you were saying that iterative attacks were insignificant. Which is it? Are they not worth a single attack of opportunity or is it a big deal to push them back one level? For my part, I think they're important enough that pushing them back a level hurts, but it's still only one level and the ability to get them at all in the first round of combat is well worth the trade.



> Plus, he loses 1 BAB for all of his attacks. Plus, if he is using his PP for this, he is not using them for something else.
> 
> If he attempts to increase his PP by taking more levels of Psychic Warrior, he drops his BAB even more and pushes back iterative attacks even more levels.




This bit is a red herring and you should know it. There are two prestige classes in the Psi Handbook (illithid slayer and warmind) that increase PP without sacrificing BAB and if the DM allows improved caster level to count as improved manifester level, there are quite a number more in Complete Warrior, etc.



> This is an EXTREMELY minor ability. Combat Reflexes is more uber than this and does not have the BAB downside. This is not unbalanced at all.




Funny, I've got characters with Combat Reflexes as well as my character with Hustle, and I can say without a doubt that, even for a reach weapon fighter, combat reflexes is nowhere near as useful. I get combat reflexes attacks once or twice every module I play with my reach weapon character. I get between four and twelve extra attacks per module with Hustle. Either your games are very very different from me or you're really stretching with this claim..


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 1, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> The reality is far more complex than this. If you add haste attacks into the equation (as you should), the full round attack is already dealing twice as much damage on average as a single attack. However, the effect of -5 and -10 to hit is usually -25% and -50% to hit respectively. Thus, if one assumes that the primary attack has a 100% chance of hitting, the secondary and tertiary attacks together will usually deal 125% of the primary--in other words, the secondary attacks are worth 1 extra primary attack as soon as you have two of them and a haste attack is worth another attack right there. (And most fighters will have some way of getting a haste attack by level 12--either boots of speed, bracers of the swift strike, a party wizard, a weapon of speed, or something).




I agree with you that it does become much more potent if you add Haste and Prestige Classes like Warmind into the equation.

However, if you do that for the PsyWarrior/Fighter, you have to add a Prestige Class to the straight Fighter as well which again, changes the balance of power.


----------



## Ballard_Alvar (Jun 1, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> To turn this into some numbers, a 20th level sorc . . .
> Thanee




When I ran the numbers Sorc came out with about 3X the equivilent Power Points.  To correct this lack of power points, My roomate and I developed a PRC called the Metamind, that is actually worth taking.  Allthough It does Sacrifice 3 Caster Levels, It Makes up for it by Doubleing the power points.  Still less powerful than the Sroc. but Ballenced with the current psion.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 1, 2005)

Ballard_Alvar said:
			
		

> When I ran the numbers Sorc came out with about 3X the equivilent Power Points.




Then you probably didn't figure in the spell level, only the caster level, or not even that.

Multiplying the sorcerer slots by equivalent number of PP is a rather pointless exercise IMHO. 

It only says, which is obvious enough, anyways, that the sorcerer can cast more spells in a day, than a psion can manifest powers (unless, of course, the psion is only going for low-level effects, which isn't really a great way to spend the PP for sure ). It does neglect to value the worth of those spellcastings and manifestations. That is what I did in my comparison, and which I find much more informative. As you probably have seen, the sorcerer is still ahead there by ~20% IIRC, but not even close to +200%, and only if all spells are being cast (which almost never happens at moderate to high levels IME).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 2, 2005)

I can see your perspective for prestige classes like warmind. 

Haste, however, IMO ought to be assumed by high levels. It's a pretty common spell, and is available through boots of speed, weapons of speed, and a odd effects like bracers of the quick strike and the valiant fury spell.

However, even if you looked at the PsyWar as trading one point of BAB and 4 hit points for access to psionic feats and hustle 3/day, I think it would be a very good--indeed game-changing--class.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I agree with you that it does become much more potent if you add Haste and Prestige Classes like Warmind into the equation.
> 
> However, if you do that for the PsyWarrior/Fighter, you have to add a Prestige Class to the straight Fighter as well which again, changes the balance of power.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 2, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Haste, however, IMO ought to be assumed by high levels. It's a pretty common spell, and is available through boots of speed, weapons of speed, and a odd effects like bracers of the quick strike and the valiant fury spell.




I don't know about that. Haste is an arcane caster only spell, hence, it requires a Wizard willing to use up several slots a day taking it, or a Sorcerer/Bard willing to give up a known spell in order to boost Fighter types.

Not all groups have that. In our group, we do not have an arcane caster at all.


Plus, you keep mentioning Boots of Speed and Weapons of Speed.


Boots of Speed are 10 rounds per day. Hardly game breaking to get full round attacks with that. Characters with Boots of Speed could turn them on during rounds where they get full round attacks and off on rounds where they do not get full round attacks. With 3 to 4 encounters per day as the guideline, the PsyWar/Fighter does not really get that many additional attacks per day due to his Boots of Speed that the straight Fighter cannot also get by using them intelligently. If you go this route, there is no real gain due to Haste here.


Weapons of Speed are +3. If you play close to the wealth by level and no item worth more what you earned within the last level, the earliest levels at which a character could get these very potent weapons are:

+1 Weapon of Speed: 32000 GP 14th
+2 Weapon of Speed: 50000 GP 15th
+3 Weapon of Speed: 72000 GP 17th
+4 Weapon of Speed: 98000 GP 18th
+5 Weapon of Speed: 128000 GP 19th

So, if your PsyWar/Fighter is using a +1 Weapon of Speed at 14th level and the straight Fighter decides to just go with the +4 Weapon, the straight Fighter will in the long run still do similar damage. A +5 Weapon of Speed versus a same cost +5 Holy Thundering Weapon, the Weapon of Speed will probably average less damage.


And yes, there are other ways to get Haste effects, but the bottom line is that this is a specific tactic that is good, but hardly game breaking.

And any DM worth his salt should have arcane enemies occasionally cast Slow to dispel it, especially enemies that have fought the PCs before and have seen their tactics in action.


----------



## Nail (Jun 2, 2005)

The game-breaking tactic?  Psi(shaper) with Astral Constructs.  Yowch, do those hurt!

I wonder, did anyone do an analysis of A-C vs SM?  I suspect that once you hit 6th level SM VI, the arcane/divine version is *way* behind the A-C.  I've seen it in practice...last night!


----------



## Someone (Jun 2, 2005)

Specially when Astral construct is the power that benefits the most from Overchannel.


----------



## two (Jun 2, 2005)

How do run-of-the-mill Astral Constructs compare vs. summoned monsters that have been augmented by the summoning feat (+4 con, +4 strength)?

Granted, it's 2 feats, but are they then close (good lord they better be, in fact, the arcane version should be, by rights, far ahead of vanilla constructs).


----------



## Evilhalfling (Jun 2, 2005)

Celestial Brown Bear (summonV) Augmented 
Large HD 6d8+36 (63hp) AC 15, 2 claws +13(1d8+10) bite +8(2d6+5) reach 5’ 
Improve grab(+16), scent sv 11/6/3 SR 11 
SQ: DR5/magic, Resist cold 5, electric 5, acid 5 smite evil (+6dmg) 

Assuming Boost construct but not Overchanneled
Astral Construct V (form of a bear)  
7d10 +30 (68hp), AC 23, 2 slams +13(1d8+9), extra slam +8(1d8+4) reach 10 
SQ: DR 5/magic; immune poison, parlization, critical hits, mind effects, cannot be barred by circle of protection. 
SA: improved grab (+18), extra attack 

So the astral constructs are way ahead on staying power - (+8AC) and pretty easily can imitate the best of SM 


Polar Bear Summon Natures Ally V (augmented) 
Large HD 8d8+52 (84 hp) AC 15, 2 claws +13(1d8+10) bite +8(2d6+5) reach 5’ 
Improve grab, scent sv 11/6/3 SR 11 
SQ: DR5/magic, Resist cold 5, electric 5, acid 5 

Or 
Large earth Elemental (augmented)
8d8+46 (84 hp) AC 18 mv 20, 2 slams +14(2d8+9)
SQ dr 5/- earth glide, immune poison, parlization, critical hits, earth mastery

Overchannel and get 
85 hp, AC 25, 2 slams +17 (1d8+11) extra slam +12(1d8+5) 
DR 10/magic improved grab. 

so really it is closer to summon natures ally in all respects - 
better variety, (unicorn excepted) less magical abilities, no intelligence.


----------



## Nail (Jun 2, 2005)

The Armor Class is the real balance problem.  No Summoned Monsters have ACs in higher than 25 or so, IIRC.  Meanwhile it's easy to get the A-Cs AC into the high 30's.

...oh heck, don't get me started.  The more I look into this balance problem, the more frustrated I get.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 2, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> The Armor Class is the real balance problem.  No Summoned Monsters have ACs in higher than 25 or so, IIRC.  Meanwhile it's easy to get the A-Cs AC into the high 30's.
> 
> ...oh heck, don't get me started.  The more I look into this balance problem, the more frustrated I get.




Interesting.

My 8th level psion has had Astral Construct since 3rd level and I have used it a total of 3 times in 5.5 levels:

1) Once to help me climb up a building by carrying me while flying.
2) Once to have an additional flanker against / target for the bad guys.
3) Once to trip a BBEG.

It is just not that useful of a power due to the high chance of your character getting attacked, just in order to disrupt it while manifesting it. It is more potent than summoning, but summoning is not that useful either (unless you have a specific spell you need cast and the creature you are summoning it can cast it).

However, we are planning on ambushing the current BBEG Mind Flayer this coming Sunday and I will be using it then as part of the ambush, hence, a fourth time.

I wonder if there is anyone out there playing a psion that uses Astral Contruct all of the time.


----------



## Nail (Jun 2, 2005)

The Psi(shaper) in my game.

Every battle.  

I know I'm basing this on less-than-perfect-knowledge, KarinsDad, but I'll guess you haven't seen high level psions in long-term play yet.  High level A-Cs (7, 8, 9) are very nasty....and *far* better than the equivalent SM spells.

How do I know?  I play a Clr who specializes in SM.  The Psi(shaper) specializes in A-Cs.  Both of us are good players, with sound tactics and rules-knowledge, and we've been playing these PCs since ~7th level.

The Psion's A-C out-last and out-gun my SMs every time.  Handily.  (Sigh) 

It's a serious balance problem.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 2, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> The Psi(shaper) in my game.
> 
> Every battle.
> 
> I know I'm basing this on less-than-perfect-knowledge, KarinsDad, but I'll guess you haven't seen high level psions in long-term play yet.  High level A-Cs (7, 8, 9) are very nasty....and *far* better than the equivalent SM spells.




I agree with you that the high level A-Cs are very tough.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> How do I know?  I play a Clr who specializes in SM.  The Psi(shaper) specializes in A-Cs.  Both of us are good players, with sound tactics and rules-knowledge, and we've been playing these PCs since ~7th level.
> 
> The Psion's A-C out-last and out-gun my SMs every time.  Handily.  (Sigh)
> 
> It's a serious balance problem.




Question though. Why are your high level enemies allowing your psion and cleric to manifest/cast one round spells without dropping a boatload of hurt on you for doing so?


----------



## Someone (Jun 2, 2005)

Making a quick comparison between summon monster and Astral Construct at various levels, ignoring feats like Augment Summoning and Boost construct:

- At level 1 the AC beats severely everthing present in the summon monster list; in terms of combat ability, the astral construct is way better than any of the monsters in terms of AC, to hit bonus, damage or hit points. The monsters have some versatility -web spinning, poison- but also does have the construct. At later levels, summon monster I is useful to check or spring traps; the construct still wins, because you can direct it mentally to do exactly what you want without having to communicate directly, and have to spend a meager 1 pp.

-At 2nd level, the fiendish vermin are an option against the astral construct. They are slightly worse in terms of attack bonus or damage, but the scorpion has 3 attacks and improved grab (it only works against small characters, though). Nothing can beat the construct´s durability, though, with 31 hit points and AC 18. IMO, the construct wins, but it´s not a beating as severe as at the previous level.

-At 3rd level, the monster´s star is the celestial bison. It beats the construct in attack bonus and damage, have damage reduction and more hit points. Less armor, though, but it´s the only disadvantage. Given the fact that you can also summon monsters with more attacks and others with interesting special abilities (like the dire weasel or dire bat) I´d say that at this level summon monster wins.

-At 4th level you can customize the astral construct so it beats every monster in the list in terms of attack bonus and damage. Still, you can choose the howler (those quills are dangerous), the fiendish dire wolf for brute force and trip goodness, and monsters with multiple attacks, like the lion or giant eagle. The construct still has better armor and hit points, but almost every monster has damage reduction. Monsters win.

-At 5th level the construct has 2 attacks and reach, making him quite dangerous, but not much more than, say, the celestial brown bear. The monsters have the interesting Achaierai, bearded devil and hound archon, with spell like and special abilities the construct can´t emulate. The construct clearly wins in terms of damage dealing, specially taking the extra attack special ability, but still it doesn´t have damage reduction (on it´s own, it´s true that it appears in the Menu B list) but the mosters have a slight edge on flexibility, specially when they can summon 1d3 or 1d4+1 monsters with real combat ability.

-At 6th level the champions of brute strenght are the large earth elemental, the celestial polar bear, celestial dire lion, and fiendish constrictor snake. All of them are clearly inferior to a construct with the improved grab option. The construct also gets DR 10/magic, making it really tough to kill. The monsters redeem slightly having monsters with more varied DRs and tricks like the air elemntal´s whirlwind. But if you want to severely beat an enemy, choose the construct.

-Level 7: Whoa. This level has the mighty Huge earth elemental, and even the construct has to admit that 2 slams with +20 (1d8+12) are worse than 2 slams +19 (2d10+9). The elemental even has 50% more hit points and a higher quality DR, good feats for laying waste on enemies, and better reach. The construct is, however, armed with the mighty menu C abilities, and has a lot of flexibility on top of being a combat monster (wich can make him even a better combat monster), but again the monsters have things like the avoral (spells and healing) bone devil (ice wall at will) and again the air elemental´s whirlwind. Also, in terms of pure damage, the fire elemental is also a very valid option.

- Level 8: Again, it´s like watching the Hulk and the Thing wrestling to decide who´s stronger, but this time the astral construct beats the greater earth elemental in terms of brute strenght when using the menu options to increase his damage output. Both are very difficult to kill, enough to distract a powerful foe for (at the very least) a couple rounds. Other monsters,like the lillend and hellcat, are seriously underpowered for the list, and one wonders what are they doing here except taking valuable space. Still, the monsters still have a couple of spellcasting things, but they don´strike me as so useful. 

-Level 9: You get the idea, it´s almosta repetition of the previous level. The elder earth elemental still inferior to the construct, but not so much. Menu C options good. Construct smash. Some monsters with minor spellcasting, but till better than the spell-like abilitoes in the construct´s menu, that limits to blasting. Special mention to the leonal´s _heal_, though it only heals 100 hit points. There are several monsters with good abilities with Fort saves, like the colossal fiendish spider venom (2d8 strenght damage) or the hezrou´s stench, that could be of use againts an spellcaster. 

Generally, the constructs are better at combat, but monsters have a little more flexibility to play other roles in combat other than meat shield and damage daler. Though, being sincere, what one wants in a summoned monster is a meat shield and a damage dealer. 

Also, if we introduce feats, constructs are the ones that benefit the most, mostly by the overchannel/talented combo, simply because thay can pull more advanced constructs one, two or three levels earlier than wizards of the same level.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 3, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Question though. Why are your high level enemies allowing your psion and cleric to manifest/cast one round spells without dropping a boatload of hurt on you for doing so?




Not every opponent can do that. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 3, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I don't know about that. Haste is an arcane caster only spell, hence, it requires a Wizard willing to use up several slots a day taking it, or a Sorcerer/Bard willing to give up a known spell in order to boost Fighter types.
> 
> Not all groups have that. In our group, we do not have an arcane caster at all.




It's one of the most common spells for arcane casters to take. If your group doesn't have an arcane caster at all then you're the one in an unusual party where standard assumptions don't necessarily apply. I know that probably 4/5 groups I play in in the RPGA's living campaigns have access to haste past level 6 or so and all of the parties in my home group have access to it (and usually prep it) except the one I run which is extremely non-standard D&D with a host of house rules and hardly any casters of any type.



> Plus, you keep mentioning Boots of Speed and Weapons of Speed.




Let's be reasonable here, I mentioned them because they're the easiest and most common ways (other than haste) to get a haste effect. There are others--I mentioned two in the previous post and now I remember that there's mithral fullplate of speed in the DMG too. And they are extremely common items that pop up in character builds all over the place. If players have the choice, a lot of them will get boots of speed.



> Boots of Speed are 10 rounds per day. Hardly game breaking to get full round attacks with that. Characters with Boots of Speed could turn them on during rounds where they get full round attacks and off on rounds where they do not get full round attacks. With 3 to 4 encounters per day as the guideline, the PsyWar/Fighter does not really get that many additional attacks per day due to his Boots of Speed that the straight Fighter cannot also get by using them intelligently. If you go this route, there is no real gain due to Haste here.




You're missing the boat because you insist on thinking in terms of total attacks without considering when those attacks occur in the combat and who you get them on. A full attack in round 1 is far better than a full attack in round 2 and an extra attack in round 1 is usually better than an extra attack in round 2 because the early attacks force the enemies to adopt a more defensive stance earlier and have the possibility of eliminating an enemy before he has any opportunity to hurt the party.




> Weapons of Speed are +3. If you play close to the wealth by level and no item worth more what you earned within the last level, the earliest levels at which a character could get these very potent weapons are:
> 
> +1 Weapon of Speed: 32000 GP 14th
> +2 Weapon of Speed: 50000 GP 15th
> ...




You keep insisting that I'm saying it's game breaking. I've never said it was. What I have said is that it changes some of the basic tactics and trade-offs that otherwise apply to melee fighters. Move or full attack is a common and fundamental dilemma and if there's something that can remove that dilemma it changes the way the game is played.



> And any DM worth his salt should have arcane enemies occasionally cast Slow to dispel it, especially enemies that have fought the PCs before and have seen their tactics in action.




I'll buy that. However casting slow occasionally does not change the effectiveness of the tactic. (And, indeed, does very little to boots of speed users since they can just activate a new haste from the boots next round).


----------



## two (Jun 3, 2005)

It's also worth noting that fighter types are not "locked in" to doing full attacks that are only damage dealing.

If you get 3 attacks a round at level 8 (thanks to boots of speed), you can use the last attack (at the lowest "to hit") to do a special manoevre such as trip, attack an object, etc. which greatly reduces the AC of the targeted subject.

Nobody makes you use your worst attack vs. the high AC of the enemy...

At most this requires one feat (to do a tricky attack like this, either disarm or trip or etc.) without provoking an AOO.  I don't think that's unreasonable for fighterly types, even a barbarian by level 8 or 9.

You can also be additionally tricky by tripping with your 2nd or 1st attack, and using the +4 prone bonus to make up for the lower BAB, etc.

Lots of options -- and only available when full attacking.


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Question though. Why are your high level enemies allowing your psion and cleric to manifest/cast one round spells without dropping a boatload of hurt on you for doing so?



You've brought this up a number of times.  Time I lay it to rest, I think.  

Just like any other tactic, summoning monsters (or creating A-Cs) requires you to pick an appropriate time.  Toe-to-toe with a melee brute is probably not the right time.  

Fortunately, the Wiz, Clr, Drd, or Psi have the abilities to avoid the enemy, as well as companions who act as friendly meat shields.  In fact, most of the time when combat begins, the spell-caster/power-manifester is NOT on the front lines....it's all about marching order, right?  (If the Wiz/Psi/Sor/whatever is always in the front lines.....he's got other problems.   )

(_Of course_ there are exceptions, etc. Your PC, for example, seems built around a direct melee option.)

Playing a Clr that summons, I've only rarely been in a combat in which I could *not* summon a monster.  DMing a Drd that summons, I was rarely able to prevent her from summoning (yep, I do know how).  Same thing (different group) with the Psi(shaper).

The Point: You are _way_ "over-weighting" the 1 round casting time vulnerability.  Big time.  It's simply not the issue you think it is.  Try it in your game!


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2005)

Someone said:
			
		

> Generally, the constructs are better at combat, but monsters have a little more flexibility to play other roles in combat other than meat shield and damage daler. Though, being sincere, what one wants in a summoned monster is a meat shield and a damage dealer.



Good analysis, *Someone*!

As _someone_ who's played a high level summoner, I can tell you the ACs of the summoned monsters suck, DR or no.  And as for the DR....a DR of 10/magic is often completely useless; there are enough bad guys with magic weapons in the campaigns I play in.

Moreover, the flexibility of the A. Construct's power lists easily dwarfs the supposed spell-casting utility of the summoned monsters.  It's really no contest.

For example, a 9th level construct (overchanneled by our party's Psi(shaper), and so gotten 2 levels earlier than the Wiz or Clr ...and boost construct feat) can be this monster:


Huge Construct AC: 41,  Hp:144, Atks: 3 slams +28 melee (3d6+16) 
.........and the Trip(ex).....and dimensional slide as a move action

Whereas at the same PC level (15), the best the Wiz/Clr can do is this (with Augment summoning...no other feats will help!):


Greater(Huge) Earth Elemental AC 20, hp:241 Atks: 2 slams +23 melee (2d10+10)
.........and has DR 10/-

Before you get all gah-gah over the elemental's DR and hp, say it with me: *Power Attack*.  Look at that AC!      The elemental may be able to take damage...but the A-C is _never gonna be hit_, even by the elemental!  And the A-C will do substantially more damage than the elemental!!!  And the A-C can trip on each attack it makes, as a free action......   And the A-C can move where ever its needed, in an instant, and still get a trip attack in.

Ugg.  This is as good as SM can dish out?  Sign me up for the psionic version, please.


----------



## Someone (Jun 3, 2005)

Yes, we pretty much agree, notice how I intentionally left out feats in the comparison and mentioned them at the end, or otherwise the post would have been too long. Of course, once you include feats it benefits the construct even more, simply because the shaper has more of them to apply (overchannel, talented and boost construct against only augment summoning) I´d say this is more a problem with Overchannel than the power, though.

When I said flexibility I wasn´t talking of combat flexibility. I already said that the construct wins in that, big time: he can select the abilities you want, and add them to an already powerful combat brute. I said that there are other options in the monster list that could be useful, like some spell-like abilities, spellcasting monsters and the ability to call 1d3 or 1d4+1 monsters. But since they come in play once in a while and the construct´s advanced combat ability comes in play always, the construct´s options are more useful than the monsters´ flexibility.

Talking about the elemental against the construct, I don´t think its´too important if the construct can actually beat the earth elemental or not. What it´s important is what they can face. The construct may be tougher than the elemental, but it´s really worth if it lasts 6 (or 9, it doesn´t matter) rounds instead of 3? Many high level battles are decided in 3 rounds, and if you make a foe waste 3 rounds on the elemental, it´s a spell well used, and the construct´s AC 41 may very well be overkill.

Also, by my experience, you don´t care at all if the construct or the elemental live or die, and offense is much more valuable in those than defense.


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2005)

Someone said:
			
		

> Yes, we pretty much agree...



You bet!  Sorry if my post's reply wasn't clear...I'm kinda aiming this at KarinsDad.    ...In a nice way.  



			
				Someone said:
			
		

> Of course, once you include feats it benefits the construct even more, simply because the shaper has more of them to apply (overchannel, talented and boost construct against only augment summoning).



I didn't know about this until after our Psi(shaper started throwing around his weight.  I had no idea the flexibility granted by those psionic feats.   Strange how there's no arcane equivalent to such power.....

...oh yeah, I forgot: Psions are just better.      



			
				Someone said:
			
		

> ... there are other options in the monster list that could be useful, like some spell-like abilities, spellcasting monsters and the ability to call 1d3 or 1d4+1 monsters.



Sure.   I've tried my hardest (as a Clr 15) to take advantage of that.  It's only very occasionally useful, as you point out.  Most times, you just need a meat-shield/flanker/extra target.



			
				Someone said:
			
		

> The construct may be tougher than the elemental, but <is it> really worth if it lasts 6 rounds instead of 3? Many high level battles are decided in 3 rounds, and if you make a foe waste 3 rounds on the elemental, it´s a spell well used, and the construct´s AC 41 may very well be overkill.



 IME, it's not overkill.  YMMV, of course.  At EL 15 - 17, you can face monsters that have +35 attack bonuses.  These same threats often have the Power Attack feat.  Combine the 2, and your Earth Elemental is getting PAed for 20 or so, and _still_ getting hit all the time.  What DR ?  

Also, IME, our battles last 7 to 9 rounds.  They are often _decided_ by round 3 or so (perhaps even round one, depending on placement), but having the SM or A-C around for the _entire_ time is very useful.

.....

If the psion A-C is not unbalanced....how about this: the wizard and cleric can use the A-C too!  How many times would you ever see the wizard not use an A-C?


----------



## Someone (Jun 3, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> If the psion A-C is not unbalanced....how about this: the wizard and cleric can use the A-C too!  How many times would you ever see the wizard not use an A-C?




Summon Monster spells are underpowered (most of the time), so I don´t think that, or a feat that allowed you to summonan extra monster with each summon, would be a bad idea.


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2005)

Me too.   OT, but: Seems like the "extra" monsters you can summon off a lower level list should be increased....heck: changed to be a set number.  Say 2 off a list 1 lower, 4 off a list 2 lower, and 8 off a list 3 or more lower.

Back on topic: I'm beginning to be swayed to the opinion that psions aren't overpowered....just their feats and powers.


----------



## Dracomeander (Jun 3, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Back on topic: I'm beginning to be swayed to the opinion that psions aren't overpowered....just their feats and powers.




I find it interesting that the feats and powers most often discussed as being overpowered are the ones I rarely even consider taking when I play a psion.

It's not that I'm unaware of the potential, I've just never felt the payoff was worth the risk. If the character is so powerful to make the others (players or characters) resentful, where is the fun and how likely are those others to help when my character does get into trouble.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> You've brought this up a number of times.  Time I lay it to rest, I think.
> 
> Just like any other tactic, summoning monsters (or creating A-Cs) requires you to pick an appropriate time.  Toe-to-toe with a melee brute is probably not the right time.
> 
> ...




Well, if your psion and cleric are hiding around a corner, sure they are less vulnerable.

I think your meat shield argument is not very strong though. I could easily have enemy archers and spell casters drop a lot of hurt on your psion and/or cleric from range. It's not just melee combatants that can mess those spells up.

But, if your game does not have an aggressive DM when spell casters do full round spells, I could see where you would think that those spells are more worthwhile.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> As someone who's played a high level summoner, I can tell you the ACs of the summoned monsters suck, DR or no. And as for the DR....a DR of 10/magic is often completely useless; there are enough bad guys with magic weapons in the campaigns I play in.




But if your DM has bad guys with magic weapons, then you get those magic weapons if you defeat the bad guys.

If your DM has bad guys casting spells to get magic weapons, then those bad guys are using up a round of spell casting to get magic weapons which means they are not attacking directly.

I would love for my DM to have bad guys with magic weapons and other magic items a lot. More for me.  



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Moreover, the flexibility of the A. Construct's power lists easily dwarfs the supposed spell-casting utility of the summoned monsters. It's really no contest.




You are also forgetting the fact that Summon Monsters allow you to summon more than one slightly lower level monster. Ditto for Summon Nature's Ally. Astral Construct does not have this advantage.

In many situations, quantity count more than quality, especially when you are talking battlefield control.


----------



## Scion (Jun 4, 2005)

hey nail 

Leaving the issue of summon monster aside for the moment (it tends to have less direct power and instead a huge range of options that the ac cant hope to compete with, and the cleric guy by default is way behind even the wizard for summon monsters anyway).

Astral constructs, are they too powerful as written?

They do tend to be pretty tough in the direct combatant department, but that is their sole job. Saying simply, 'they are too good at it' is just as useful as saying, 'healing spells are too good at it' or 'swords are too good at dealing damage'.

Now, obviously you have seen them in play (I have as well for that matter, all the way up to ac 8 in fact), and have formed some opinions about them.

Again, leaving aside the summon monster guy because that clouds the issue at hand, are the astral constructs too powerful as written?

Now, this power has a few limitations which definately come into play.

1) One round casting time. Now, sometimes this isnt a major issue, other times it is. If you need some sort of damage or blocking 'right now', then the power is useless. If you are in a position where people can disrupt your power somehow then it is a big risk. If you are slowed then it takes this power mostly out of the equation (I mention this mainly because I have seen it be an issue in a few very important encounters).

While it isnt all encompassing it definately is an issue that needs to be tossed out there.

2) Shaper only power. Now, this is also a pretty serious issue. I know that some people like to dismiss this out of hand, that is a major error. A major limiting factor in picking psionic powers is that many of the spells that mages take for granted are distributed into these little disciplines. The part that matters for this discussion is that having this power means that they gave up other things. They are a specialist and so dont have access to 5 other disciplines or they spent a feat to gain it. Both of those are big issues.

Effectively this means that the psion who chooses this discipline is in a class specialized in doing such things. Specialists 'should' be stronger in their area of specialty than others who are not specialized.

3) Only one construct in a single manifestation. Sometimes having only a single bruiser simply isnt good enough.

4) Small list of abilities to choose from and very few to pick. Each construct only gets 1 pick (until 9th). A higher list ability can be turned in for 2 of the next lower list in order to gain more abilities, but then you have to pick from generally weaker abilities.

5) Dispel magic, dispel psionics, dismiss ectoplasm, dissipator weapon, suppression weapon, antimagic field, etc.. Sometimes they just dont stick around long. Spending your whole round getting one only to have it and your party hit by an area dispel kindof sucks. Albiet, this is a fairly minor issue at times, it definately comes into play.


With all of this the constructs were made pretty rough and tumble. They take a ton of pp to keep up in effectivness for the level of bad guys that you go up against and should be treated as such.

Looking back at summon monsters briefly they tend to have a lot of out of combat options or options in combat that the constructs can never get. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. Typcially the construct is deadlier in direct melee combat (but not always) but it is definately much weaker in other areas.

Again though, as for my first question, going by monsters (since the constructs are mostly useless outside of combat) of appropriate CR's and the expenditure of pp (same CR against party means roughly 20% resources spent to overcome) and time (1 round action) are the astral constructs too powerful?

I'd love to see some examples given about how they are too strong/weak. Making up actual constructs for given situations. This sort of thing has to be done a large number of times in different ways to give a good overview though, not many are willing to put in that sort of time.

So far it sounds like nail has had issues with ac's being more powerful than summon monsters, I am not sure if this means he thinks that the ac's are too powerful, summons are too weak, or some combination of the two. I have seen ac's and summon monsters used quite a bit and have had no serious issues with the ac (the biggest issue with the summon monsters is that they are very rarely good in direct melee combat, but their other tactical options are very impressive).


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 4, 2005)

> Typcially the construct is deadlier in direct melee combat (but not always) but it is definately much weaker in other areas.



 And, since we're comparing, we might as well address the fact the the Constructs also do not require exotic languages to command, nor do they run into problems with common low level spell-effects, such as Protection from Evil/Good/What-Have-You.

And we might as well ALSO keep in mind that many of those oh so vaunted special abilities of the SM list are extremely underpowered for the level.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> And, since we're comparing, we might as well address the fact the the Constructs also do not require exotic languages to command, nor do they run into problems with common low level spell-effects, such as Protection from Evil/Good/What-Have-You.




Actually, the Protection From Evil point is being exaggerated a little as well.

It only stops bodily contact. It does not stop the creature from being summoned.

So, you could still use the summoned creature to do things like cast spells.

Plus, you could surround a Fighter with summoned creatures and if he attacks one of them, the Protection From Evil protection drops for that creature. If he does not attack the creature and is totally surrounded, he cannot move until he does attack a creature.

This is sometimes a good tactic for a BBEG. Have several of his henchmen attack a PC. Summon a few monsters to fill up any squares still remaining around the PC in order to trap him. Even if he has a Protection From Evil, he is still boxed in somewhat until he can take out an opponent.


There are two mundane ways to get past bodily contact protection of this spell:

1) The opponent himself attacks or tries to force the barrier against the summoned creature.

2) The caster of the Protection From Evil spell does not overcome the spell resistance of the summoned creature.


Also, Magic Circle of Protection has another downside. If you summon 3 monsters, which you can potentially do starting with Summon Monster II or Summon Nature's Ally II, they could surround the circle of protection. The character who was the target of the spell is then prevented from moving without attempting to move the barrier against one of the creatures.

Hence, getting the bodily contact protection with Magic Circle of Protection is a choice between moving and foregoing the protection if your opponent is smart enough to surround you with summoned creatures.


PS. The exotic language issue is pretty minor as well. A Tongues or Telepathy spell, or one or two skill points will get you an exotic language. If your character wants to become a summoner, these are not major roadblocks.


----------



## Scion (Jun 4, 2005)

Language is almost never a problem. The various templates dont seem to mention any language that they must speak, so the default of understanding common comes into play.

Just looking over the list if you speak common you can talk to 90% of them, if your dm makse them go for celestial/infernal (could happen) then you are up to needing to know 3 languages that help with your tactic and help with things outside of combat on occasion.

So, for the cost of 2 languages (4, 3, or 2 skill points depending) you are definately covered.

Where is the problem?


----------



## Nail (Jun 6, 2005)

Dracomeander said:
			
		

> .. I've just never felt the payoff was worth the risk. If the character is so powerful to make the others (players or characters) resentful, where is the fun and how likely are those others to help when my character does get into trouble.



I rest my case.   


Nah....what's the fun in that?  Might make the pro-psion people resentful?


----------



## Nail (Jun 6, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Well, if your psion and cleric are hiding around a corner, sure they are less vulnerable.



Are you claiming that Psi or Clr or Wiz can only avoid being a target when hiding around a corner?  Nonsense.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I think your meat shield argument is not very strong though.



I got that you think that.  (I'm thinking your party's meat shields aren't doing their job, BTW.)  Perhaps this is best solved by a question: How many times has your psion been disrupted in your game?  I'm guessing the answer is "once or twice".



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I could easily have enemy archers and spell casters drop a lot of hurt on your psion and/or cleric from range. It's not just melee combatants that can mess those spells up.



Sure.  And Asmodeus could show up at the party too. 

Trying to disrupt a caster/manifester is a legitimate tactic....but it is often not the best one or easily accomplished.  The Wiz/Clr/Psi has defences too, right?   Didn't you just get done saying your Psi has a high AC, etc?  Moreover, caster's often have a concentration check that's high enough not to be seriously inconvenienced.  

Again: how often have you seen this tactic in use?  How often has your DM had creatures attack the casters in an attempt to disrupt casting?  (Be sure to distiguish that from creatures attacking the casters for all the other reasons they would do so!)





...and _even if_ you've seen this tactic used often, the central point still stands: A-C is not blanced WRT the comparable arcane equivalent.  (They both have the same casting time, so it's really a moot point.) It's not even close....even against a _specialist_ conjuring wizard or cleric.


----------



## Nail (Jun 6, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> hey nail



Hey ho!



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Leaving the issue of summon monster aside for the moment...




I'm afraid you can't.  Not without leaving aside the central issue!



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Astral constructs, are they too powerful as written?



And your question begs the real question: "Are Astral Constructs too powerful as written  as compared to other magic-summoned aid?"



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Now, this power has a few limitations which definately come into play.
> 
> 1) One round casting time.



Equal to _Summon Monster/Summon Nature's Ally_, and so irrelevant.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> 2) Shaper only power.



You answer this one yourself: "or they spent a feat to gain it."

If my cleric could spend a feat to get it (and the ability to freely _heighten_ it), I'd have no arguement with you.  None at all.  




			
				Scion said:
			
		

> 3) Only one construct in a single manifestation. Sometimes having only a single bruiser simply isnt good enough.



True.  Now, if only the multiple brusers from _SM_ were good enough.....

And let's not forget: summoning multiple monsters can still leave you with only one monster.  1d3 has, with a 33% chance, a number of "1".



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> 4) Small list of abilities to choose from and very few to pick.



Your "small list of abilities" are the cream of the crop!  What on Zeus' green earth are you talking about!    And you can trade down the power list, 2 for 1.   ......Wait a minute: have you ever _played_ a shaper?



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> 5) Dispel magic, dispel psionics, dismiss ectoplasm, dissipator weapon, suppression weapon, antimagic field, etc..



Of these, only "dispel magic" is common enough in our game to be a significant hindrance.  And since that effects _Summoned_ monsters just as well, it's a moot point.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> I'd love to see some examples given about how they are too strong/weak. Making up actual constructs for given situations.



Me too, from other groups.  As I'm the summoner in my game, I have the worked up monster list, including the only applicable feat (Augment Summoning).  I've cast side-by-side with our party's Psi(shaper), with his 2 applicable feats (Boost construct and overchannel).  It's clear to all at the table who is out-of-whack.


----------



## Nail (Jun 6, 2005)

BTW: I just had a discussion with our group's psion.  I mentioned I might play a psion next, 'cause they're just so powerful.  He said: "There are plenty of ways to thwart the psion......"   

But he wouldn't give any specifics....heh, heh......I DM our group sometimes, so his reasoning is clear enough.  

So: How do you bring Psions down to earth?  So far, the only convincing arguement I've heard is "have all of the monsters attack him all the time".  Anything else more helpful?  What is the psion's (apparently hidden) weaknesses that bring them down to the same level as a wizard, say?

I'm all ears.


----------



## two (Jun 6, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> BTW: I just had a discussion with our group's psion.  I mentioned I might play a psion next, 'cause they're just so powerful.  He said: "There are plenty of ways to twart the psion......"
> 
> But he wouldn't give any specifics....heh, heh......I DM our group sometimes, so his reasoning is clear enough.
> 
> ...




Good question.


----------



## Scion (Jun 6, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> I'm afraid you can't.  Not without leaving aside the central issue!




Actually, you can. If you choose not to then there is already a problem.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> And your question begs the real question: "Are Astral Constructs too powerful as written  as compared to other magic-summoned aid?"




And here is the problem. It does not beg this question, the question you just possed is completely irrelevant at the time being. Hence why I said to ignore it. The question you just possed clouds the point I was making and tosses in things akin to, 'well, fireball does _fire_ damage and a lot of it, comparing it to cone of cold, which does no fire damage at all, fireball is completely overpowered! up to 10d6 of fire damage vs 0 fire damage! unbalanced!'

The spell and the power are aimed at different things. Ac is based on being able to stand up in melee and effectively nothing else. The summons dont do very well in melee generally (some do, some do incredible jobs in melee in fact but that isnt the point), so if you compare a specialist power that does one thing to a generalist spell which does many things but not merely the one thing they other can do.. I am sure that everyone can see the problem with comparing the two for only melee combat.

If not I'll try again. If we compare two things, one which is good in a narrow band of situations and another that is good in a wide range of situations then I will expect the first to win out in its emphasis nearly 100% of the time. If it doesnt then something is wrong.

After that, coming in and saying that the first is broken because it beats the second just doesnt make any sense.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Equal to _Summon Monster/Summon Nature's Ally_, and so irrelevant.




Now, now nail.. this is beneath you. It is relevant as a balancing point for the power in general. Which is part of the question I was asking. Also, as I said ignoring the summons as much as possible, yet again bringing point number 1 to bear.

It is a very important balancing feature. The manifestor leaves himself unable to do anything until his next turn. During which time nothing has happened and his power may be disrupted. Sure, you wont always be disrupted, but again *nothing has happened until just before his next action*. This means that any other single action power could've been used instead to gain some other more immediate benefit. Definately a major balancing point.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> You answer this one yourself: "or they spent a feat to gain it."




Being put even further behind on the resource list. Really, the amount of resource investment that is being either ignored or tossed aside here is staggering.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> If my cleric could spend a feat to get it (and the ability to freely _heighten_ it), I'd have no arguement with you.  None at all.




The cleric has so many other benefits far outstripping the psion that it is incredible to even think that the cleric would need something else above and beyond the psion.

The cleric already gets a free scaling version of summon monster, more so than the psion. The cleric gets domains for more abilities and whole extra lists of spells that might generally be out of his reach. Better hd. Better BAB. Better saves. More abilities. More casting potential. Better heals. Better party buffs. Armor proficiency.

So, the cleric doesnt even have to spend a feat to get the 'freely heightened' version of summon monster. The tradeoff for them is that they can only summon certain alignments.

Who is behind the power curve in this comparison again?



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> True.  Now, if only the multiple brusers from _SM_ were good enough.....




But they are, for what they were meant to do. Going back to the earth elemental they arent terribly dissimilar, but the construct comes out ahead in direct melee.. of course the elemental has other benefits (such as earth glide). So even while being behind in one area the elemental is ahead in others.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> And let's not forget: summoning multiple monsters can still leave you with only one monster.  1d3 has, with a 33% chance, a number of "1".




and a 33% chance of being 3, and a 33% chance of being 2, or a 66% chance of being higher than 1, or an average of 2.

The 'option' is there for one while it is not there for the other. If you feel that the option should be better complain to the summon monster powers that be to make it better, dont go around nerfing everything else.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Your "small list of abilities" are the cream of the crop!  What on Zeus' green earth are you talking about!   And you can trade down the power list, 2 for 1.   ......Wait a minute: have you ever _played_ a shaper?




Yes I have, and if you will be kind enough to read I even mentioned the trade (it is mentioned in the very next sentence of what you quoted strangely enough.

It is a small list of abilities, the summon monster list is orders of magnitude larger. Even failing that however the number of choices one can get is very small. For AC 1, 2, and 3 they only get a single choice of the A list. That is it. I'd definately call that a limited selection. Even after that, say AC 4, 5, 6, they only get one choice of B or two from A. Generally speaking the higher level lists are better, so you can get two lower level abilities instead of a higher one. Good for options, sometimes bad for power.

While it is customizeable to a good degree it still sucks for the constructs, they dont have a lot of options.

Going back to the summon monsters pretty much all of them have a good amount of resistances, some amount of SR, Damage reduction pretty early on, smite of some kind, and various other abilities that all come standard. Each one gets a lot more in the 'stuff' category but less ability to pick and choose. Which of those two choices is stronger depends on the who gets what of course and the situation one is in. But, given that, it is very possible for the summoning to come out way ahead and in fact it does pretty often for this sort of thing.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Of these, only "dispel magic" is common enough in our game to be a significant hindrance.  And since that effects _Summoned_ monsters just as well, it's a moot point.




For the first I'll just say, says you. But, even with that, dispel magic tends to be common enough that it is all that is needed. Failing that however in any game which actually has psionics incorporated (not a difficult task, no more difficult than adding stuff from any other book, and it is designed to lend itself to this easily) will see some of the others.

Still, it is just one thing on the list. It is a hinderance, it is a balancing point, and it is completely unimportant if it effects both equally well.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Me too, from other groups.  As I'm the summoner in my game, I have the worked up monster list, including the only applicable feat (Augment Summoning).  I've cast side-by-side with our party's Psi(shaper), with his 2 applicable feats (Boost construct and overchannel).  It's clear to all at the table who is out-of-whack.




Yeah, the summoner isnt playing to his strengths very well.

I only say this because trying to fit a round peg into a square hole doesnt work very well. Like the example above if someone starts complaining that their cone of cold doesnt deal enough fire damage (something it isnt designed to do at all to begin with) that doesnt suddenly mean that fireball is overpowered or that cone of cold is underpowered.

If a caster type wants his summons to do something that they are not very good at then that sounds like prc territory to me. Give up a few feats, and maybe some caster levels, and pop out with much more impressive summons.

If this is the same summoner that was mentioned before (the cleric) then it is no wonder there is some difference going on, if you cut out over half of your options then you _should_ be weaker in that department. Especially considering the base class that the person is coming from.

If the specialist who is behind in every/nearly every other way (and incredibly so as compared with the cleric) isnt leaps and bounds ahead in his area of emphasis then something is seriously wrong.

Second, if the comparison is going with one persons strengths and against the second persons then there is zero reason to change either one to make them the same.


Once again though, the question is, 'are the astral constructs too powerful as written?' and not 'are they too powerful as compared with summon monster?'. At least as far as I have written. If we do the second question first then we 'still' have to answer the first, if we answer the first then the second question is unimportant. I see no reason to try to answer both when only one is needed.


----------



## Scion (Jun 6, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> BTW: I just had a discussion with our group's psion.  I mentioned I might play a psion next, 'cause they're just so powerful.  He said: "There are plenty of ways to thwart the psion......"
> 
> But he wouldn't give any specifics....heh, heh......I DM our group sometimes, so his reasoning is clear enough.
> 
> ...




He is a caster with only one good save and a serious lack of hp, along with a very small pool of pp (I have played as, played with, and dm'd for casters of all types, the psion is one of the first to go dry, even when being frugal).

So, as a parallel question, how does one bring, say, the cleric down to earth? They are a much tougher beast in nearly every way. So, to rephrase your question, 'what is the clerics (apparently hidden) weaknesses that bring them down to the same level as a wizard, say?'


----------



## Nail (Jun 6, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> It does not beg this question, the question you just possed is completely irrelevant at the time being. Hence why I said to ignore it. The question you just possed clouds the point I was making and tosses in things akin to, 'well, fireball does _fire_ damage and a lot of it, comparing it to cone of cold, which does no fire damage at all, fireball is completely overpowered! up to 10d6 of fire damage vs 0 fire damage! unbalanced!'




Errr!???

You're not serious.

You think we shouldn't compare A-C to SM!!!!????

We're not comparing apples to oranges here, you know.


----------



## Diirk (Jun 6, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> If this is the same summoner that was mentioned before (the cleric) then it is no wonder there is some difference going on, if you cut out over half of your options then you should be weaker in that department. Especially considering the base class that the person is coming from.
> 
> If the specialist who is behind in every/nearly every other way (and incredibly so as compared with the cleric) isnt leaps and bounds ahead in his area of emphasis then something is seriously wrong.




I'm not sure I understand this argument 'especially considering the base class that the person is coming from'. Since its ok for astral construct from the more 'specialist' psion to be better than the 'generalist' cleric's summon monster, does that mean that a sorcerer's summon monsters should be better than a psions astral constructs ? After all, the sorcerer is ever more limited than the psion... (remember he has to learn summon monster not once, but once per level he wants it at !)

There's a problem tho... its the same spell for clerics and sorcerers. We can't just make it more powerful for sorcerer and less for the cleric...


----------



## Nail (Jun 6, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> So, to rephrase your question, 'what is the clerics (apparently hidden) weaknesses that bring them down to the same level as a wizard, say?'



You keep trying this.    Rephrasing or re-directing the question, that is.  It does little more than obscure the thread's issue.

To orient you: At this point we're comparing a psion's power list to that other classes.  I was asked (up above somewhere), about the problems with a specific power: Astral Construct.  To compare, I used the spell _Summon Monster_.  Trying to confound this discussion with another about clerical power (or monk power, or druid power, or....) simply is not germane to the discussion.

Other than Scion, is there someone else that doesn't think that A-C can be compared to SM?


----------



## helium3 (Jun 7, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> One thing I haven't noticed anyone address in this discussion is the fact that psions can tweak their blasting powers for best effect.
> 
> A sorcerer who knows _fireball_ and encounters a fire elemental is screwed; a psion just sets phasers on cold.
> 
> I think this is a significant advantage.




I agree. I really like psionics and make a lot of effort to work them into my campaign world so that they don't have the "tacked on" feel that everyone seems to complain about. Of the complaints about the 3.5 psionics system, this is one of three or four that I take fairly seriously. I haven't quite figured out how to fix it, but I suspect the conclusion that I will come to is that all evocation schools with energy subtypes will probably allow for variable energy types. I'd probably also tack on that acid as an "energy subtype" is only available for conjuration school spells.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> You think we shouldn't compare A-C to SM!!!!????
> 
> We're not comparing apples to oranges here, you know.




No, we are comparing something that is designed to do one thing to another which only 'can' do that one thing but also has lots of other uses.

Like I said, answering one question instead of having to answer two is better. Even if we answered the question you were trying to pose we still have no real answers. Why try to answer a question when the answer wont matter?

Specialist power that is primarily useful in melee combat and has little other use had better be better than the generalist one that has lots of different uses. If the second ties or beats the first then the first is 'highly' underpowered.



And to diirk, it doesnt matter how good or bad summon monster is compared to astral construct, that is the point, they do different things. Besides, if you wanted to compare the two you would first have to show that summon monster is weak/strong/just right. The other points I was making that you quoted were bringing up that there were so many other factors clouding that issue that it just isnt worth going after.

The sorc would likely only have to spend a few slots, each of those would grant much more versitility overall than the astral construct power and it is debateable which is more costly (a few slot choices or the feat, given that sorcs have more spells known than psions have powers known).


Yet again though, the issue isnt which is better in their respective fields between summon monster and astral construct, it is simply if astral constructs are too powerful as written.

To try to compare with with summon monster as a basis for determining overall balance wont work. We dont know if summon monster by itself is too weak/too strong/just right, we'd have to compare the strength of a specialist to the strength of a generalist, and then we'd have to compare use/cost ratios between the two. That is a lot of work and in the end we still havent answered the question of whether or not astral construct is too strong.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 7, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> My 8th level psion has had Astral Construct since 3rd level and I have used it a total of 3 times in 5.5 levels:
> 
> ...




Yeah. Our party's shaper used astral constructs all the time and to great effect. Then we realized that summoning spells (and astral construct) have a full round casting time. I don't think he's used them since.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> You keep trying this.  Rephrasing or re-directing the question, that is.  It does little more than obscure the thread's issue.




Just tossing your own tactics back at you.

Also, if you dont have any problems with wizards/sorcs/clerics then you must have certain ways of dealing with them. So, if they are just another primary caster with the same weaknesses (which they are generally, some are shifted around but they are just another primary caster with a host of vulnerabilities) then asking what you do to clerics (argueably one of the best full casters out there) doesnt seem too bad. The same sort of tactics will work, and generally work better, against the psion.

So, it is a question who's answer will help answer your own question.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 7, 2005)

Psions have the same weaknesses as other primary casters!?!??! You've got to be joking. Let's see, the three best methods for shutting down sorcerers, wizards, warmages, and all other primary casters are, in order:

1. grapple
2. ready an action to disrupt the spell
3. silence

Of those three, silence doesn't work at all against psions and grappling doesn't work as well at low levels and doesn't work at all at high levels (where concentration checks are high enough to auto-succeed).

Readying an action to disrupt a power works almost as well as disrupting a spell (though, since powers don't require components, a hidden psion is much harder to disrupt and the invulnerability to silence means that readying a silence spell to disrupt a power (one of the best tactics against spellcasters) doesn't work at all).

So, by my count, psions are, at the most conservative estimate, twice as hard to shut down as other casters.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> So, if they are just another primary caster with the same weaknesses (which they are generally, some are shifted around but they are just another primary caster with a host of vulnerabilities) then asking what you do to clerics (argueably one of the best full casters out there) doesnt seem too bad. The same sort of tactics will work, and generally work better, against the psion.
> 
> So, it is a question who's answer will help answer your own question.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 7, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Language is almost never a problem. The various templates dont seem to mention any language that they must speak, so the default of understanding common comes into play.



 If your DM rules that way, they are being illogical (Yeah, I know.  D&D, logic, bad).  Considering that the Celestial/Fiendish templates imply BY VERY DEFINITION that said creatures come from good/evil-aligned planes.  And since most of them have a very low intelligence, that means no bonus languages.  Which would mean not able to communicate on their plane of origin.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> So, for the cost of 2 languages (4, 3, or 2 skill points depending) you are definately covered.



 One of the wonderful things 3.5 did NOT do away with was the difference between Abyssal and Infernal.  Which means 3 languages (for, SORRY, 2, 4, or 6 skill points depending).  Ignoring that a good many of the creatures on the list still only speak the elemental tongues.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, the Protection From Evil point is being exaggerated a little as well.





			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> PS. The exotic language issue is pretty minor as well. A Tongues or Telepathy spell, or one or two skill points will get you an exotic language. If your character wants to become a summoner, these are not major roadblocks.




You will note that I never made the claim that these were insurmountable problems.  But if you try to claim that they are NON-issues, you are very simply delusional.

(PS: Gotta love the constant use of such unchallengable subjectivities as "minor issue")


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 7, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> If your DM rules that way, they are being illogical (Yeah, I know.  D&D, logic, bad).  Considering that the Celestial/Fiendish templates imply BY VERY DEFINITION that said creatures come from good/evil-aligned planes.




And most understand, even if they do not speak, Common - just like the majority of extraplanar D&D creatures.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 7, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> If your DM rules that way, they are being illogical (Yeah, I know.  D&D, logic, bad).




Hmm?  They're being incredibly logical.

1. The creature has an Int of 3 or greater.

Therefore they understand at least one language.

2. The creature's description does not mention any language.

Therefore, the language they understand is Common.

The logic is impeccable.

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Psions have the same weaknesses as other primary casters?




Note that even in the part you quoted I said that some shifted around a bit. Each primary caster has their own strengths and weaknesses but there is quite a bit of overlap.

Lets look at your list though.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> 1. grapple
> 2. ready an action to disrupt the spell
> 3. silence




1 still works, just not as well. Of course, if the spell doesnt have a somatic component then they are in the same boat as the psion anyway. Still, psions are better generally, though still in trouble. Not too bad.

2 still works against the psion. You know that they are manifesting just like you know someone is casting a spell.

3 is a broken spell no matter how you look at it. It negates entire skills, kills spellcasting, and is incredibly easy to use in horribly game breaking ways. Should we point out other broken spells to show how overpowered casters are? The psions have a definate advantage here, but mainly only because this spell still hasnt been fixed like darkness was.




			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> So, by my count, psions are, at the most conservative estimate, twice as hard to shut down as other casters.




Time to check out a few other options then. There are lots out there, just look around.

Besides, of the three you listed only one doesnt work, and it is an incredibly broken spell to begin with. I guess that means that even normal casters are hard to shut down.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> If your DM rules that way, they are being illogical
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Jun 7, 2005)

I've been following this and many previous threads for some time.  I'm currently reading the XPH and comparing the psion, psionic feats, and psionic powers particularly against arcane spellcasters, spellcasting feats and spells.  I'll attach the analysis when it's done.  But let's just say that, in my view, the game designers have endeavoured to shoe-horn a particularly flexible magic-using scheme into a game whose balance is contingent upon a Vancian magic-using scheme, with disasterous results for game balance.  On my current analysis, I concur with Thanee's overarching thesis that pisonic spellcasting is unbalanced against SRD "fire-and-forget" spellcasting.  Putting to one side all of the arguments about psionic classes, feats and power, a "spell point" system such as the psionic power point pool, which grants an additional degree of freedom over the SRD spellcasting system, needs to be balanced by other game mechanics to make the additional flexibility come at a cost.  To my mind, there are no game mechanics in the XPH which adjust for this additional flexibility.  Indeed, the whole scheme of the XPH is to grant additional flexibility to psionicists.  At this stage, I also concur with Thanee's recommendations regarding toning down the psion and psionic powers.

To my mind, the XPH is nothing more than the game designers ramping up the power levels in D&D v.3.5 - as they are doing in other supplements to the core rules.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 7, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Note that even in the part you quoted I said that some shifted around a bit. Each primary caster has their own strengths and weaknesses but there is quite a bit of overlap.
> 
> Lets look at your list though.
> 
> 1 still works, just not as well. Of course, if the spell doesnt have a somatic component then they are in the same boat as the psion anyway. Still, psions are better generally, though still in trouble. Not too bad.




So, what you're saying is that, unless conventional spellcasters have spells without somatic components (of which there is a rather limited list), they're utterly hosed. Psions, on the other hand, are merely inconvenienced by grappling and not even that at high levels. That sounds pretty much like what I said. Psions are somewhat vulnerable to grappling, but not nearly as vulnerable as conventional casters.

Stick a 10th level wizard in an evard's spell and he's pretty much hosed unless he's got a dimension door or teleport prepped. Stick a 10th level psion in the evard's and he can still blow stuff up or do whatever else he wants with an only moderately difficult concentration check. Pin a wizard or sorcerer and only stilled and silent spells with no material components (requires preparing a spell using three feats) are available. Pin a psion and he's not any more inconvenienced than he used to be.



> 2 still works against the psion. You know that they are manifesting just like you know someone is casting a spell.




I'll grant that number two works nearly as well against psions as against conventional casters. Indeed, I said as much in the original post. That, and the fact that grapples inconvenience psions is why I rated psions as half as vulnerable to these three tactics as wizards (grapple 50% vulnerable, disruption 100% vulnerable, silence 0% vulnerable).

(In the corner case of an invisible psion, that is not true because an invisible psion can suppress displays with a simple concentration check and not betray his location through motion or sound like a conventional caster would, but, that's a corner case).



> 3 is a broken spell no matter how you look at it. It negates entire skills, kills spellcasting, and is incredibly easy to use in horribly game breaking ways. Should we point out other broken spells to show how overpowered casters are? The psions have a definate advantage here, but mainly only because this spell still hasnt been fixed like darkness was.




So, if silence is a dramatically broken spell and psions are unaffected by it, one might conclude that it is a rather significant advantage for psions.

What other spells or powers might or might not be broken is irrelevant since we are now considering how psions and conventional casters can respond to broken spells, not how many of them they get. If conventional casters were less vulnerable than psions to various ovepowered spells and powers, that would be a mark in their favor. However, (other than, arguably, magic missile) I can't think of any spells that conventional casters can defend against more easily than psions can.

(All this, assuming, for the sake of the argument that silence is broken--I'll leave to one side whether the judgement of someone who prefers 3.5 darkness can be trusted to give good estimates of what constitutes "broken").



> Time to check out a few other options then. There are lots out there, just look around.




Really? I notice you don't mention any. As it happens, I'm well aware of a number of other options (for instance, threaten a caster with a melee weapon to force him to cast defensively or entangle him to force a DC 15 concentration check, or deafen them for a 20% miscast chance) but none of them work with anywhere near the effectiveness of the first three. If you've got some hidden under your hat, you should mention them. Otherwise, people may suspect that you're just blowing smoke.



> Besides, of the three you listed only one doesnt work, and it is an incredibly broken spell to begin with. I guess that means that even normal casters are hard to shut down.




If you read even what you wrote previously, you should be well aware that your evidence does not support this conclusion. Of the three most efficient ways of shutting down casters, as I said earlier and you concurred in the text of your reply, one is utterly ineffective against psions and one is significantly less effective against psions than against conventional casters. If your conclusion is that normal casters are hard to shut down (which is probably not a legitmate conclusion, based on the evidence), the next step based on the evidence that even you can see is to conclude that psions are next to impossible to shut down.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 7, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Likely I didnt cover it well enough when I said it last, sorry about that, but going strictly by the raw they understand common. Personally, I dont have any problem with that. If the dm wishes to change it that is his perogative, but then we are outside of the raw and it will likely cause other problems. (of course, I treat them as understanding common and the language of their plane whenever I run it, so ::shrugs:



 Wow!  You didn't actually read a single word I wrote, did you?



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And most understand, even if they do not speak, Common - just like the majority of extraplanar D&D creatures.



 Aside from the largest groups, such as demons, devils, and elementals you mean.  (Although the former two generally have telepathy, so the point is largely moot.)


----------



## Galfridus (Jun 7, 2005)

I had some issues with Psionics in my game last night, and rather than start a new thread, I'll add to this one, since it seems relevant. 

I definitely run a "few encounters a day" game -- especially now, at 16th level, the PCs have the ability to retreat at will, making it unlikely that they will fight more often than they want to. 

In the previous session, the party had just slain a dragon -- not just a dragon, but THE dragon, the dragon that was the central NPC for more or less the entire game. It was a large fight -- the Psion used Bend Reality several times, maximized Crystal Shards, etc., and was down to about 25% of his PP. He and one other PC then got caught in a teleport trap and ended up fighting a four person team of 16th level NPCs. He got _mazed_; when he came back, it was him against a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Rogue, who were ready for him.

Round 1: Wizard Chain Lightnings him, Rogue shoots him (only hitting once due to +13 Inertial Armor). He manifests _Temporal Acceleration_, and summons an Astral Construct 9 (overchannel / Talented), which kills the wizard in one round. The cleric tries to Dispel the construct and fails.

Round 2: Rogue shoots again, hitting once. Astral Construct kills the Cleric (Rending, ~120 points of damage). He does Temporal Acceleration again to start summoning another Construct.

Round 3: Rogue goes invisible via potion. Second construct shows up with Blindsight, flushes out Rogue. Psion uses a Cold energy ball to finish him off (no Reflex save, no evasion).

I was pretty stunned. There really wasn't any luck here -- he just outmatched them, badly.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 7, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Aside from the largest groups, such as demons, devils, and elementals you mean.  (*Although the former two generally have telepathy*, so the point is largely moot.)




Exactly.


----------



## two (Jun 7, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> I had some issues with Psionics in my game last night, and rather than start a new thread, I'll add to this one, since it seems relevant.
> 
> I definitely run a "few encounters a day" game -- especially now, at 16th level, the PCs have the ability to retreat at will, making it unlikely that they will fight more often than they want to.
> 
> ...





That sounds kinda scary.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> So, what you're saying is that, unless conventional spellcasters have spells without somatic components (of which there is a rather limited list), they're utterly hosed. Psions, on the other hand, are merely inconvenienced by grappling and not even that at high levels. That sounds pretty much like what I said. Psions are somewhat vulnerable to grappling, but not nearly as vulnerable as conventional casters.




As I said before, it does effect casters more than manifestors, generally speaking. However, as we get into higher levels the caster types will effectively always have an answer for it, or they are simply asking to be killed. Blocking off weaknesses is part of high level play. There are quite a few ways around this, some easier than others, some more mundane than others.

But, I did say that psions have an easier time, but they are both hindered by it.

Also, there are spells with no somatic components, and the divine casters will tend to have an easier time at it than the arcane guys also. Once again, there are differences in the weaknesses but there are issues that are shared.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Stick a 10th level wizard in an evard's spell and he's pretty much hosed




Same goes for a number of classes actually, especially the rogue. I believe I saw somewhere that people wanted to change that spells grapple bonus to be much less than what it is. (also, I would expect anyone who can cast high enough spells to have some sort of contingency plan in case something bad like this happens, if not why is it the psions fault?)



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> So, if silence is a dramatically broken spell and psions are unaffected by it, one might conclude that it is a rather significant advantage for psions.




So, you want to change the psion instead of the broken spell? That makes no sense what-so-ever EB.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> If conventional casters were less vulnerable than psions to various ovepowered spells and powers, that would be a mark in their favor. However, (other than, arguably, magic missile) I can't think of any spells that conventional casters can defend against more easily than psions can.




Lets just say that spell turning is a very poweful spell. There is a defense against an incredibly large number of spells and powers and works much, much more effectively against psions than against other casters generally. (psions have a lot of short range targetting powers)

Other casters tend to be able to cast at much longer ranges also along with having some spells with near infinite versitility that can work in a number of situations (such as the shadow spells, or even illusions in general which the psions have no powers that compare).



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> (All this, assuming, for the sake of the argument that silence is broken--I'll leave to one side whether the judgement of someone who prefers 3.5 darkness can be trusted to give good estimates of what constitutes "broken").




Apparently you have not seen just how crazy that spell can get with a properly prepared strikeforce. While the new name is silly (it should be called something like, 'shadows' or 'shadowy illumination' or some such) and has some odd effects (like lighting up a dark room) at least it fixes the other problems. Not perfect yet, but much better on the balance scale.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Really? I notice you don't mention any.




True to a degree, good of you to notice. Of course I did this on purpose to give people a chance to think. But then, I did mention some before, they were just ignored.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> If you read even what you wrote previously, you should be well aware that your evidence does not support this conclusion.




you gave three of which one is completely effective, one only slightly less effective against the psion than the caster (this because there are a number of ways for the caster to avoid such situations or get out of them once they happen, more than the psion has, so one is more susceptable but has an easier time getting away while the other is less susceptable but has a harder time getting away), and one that is completely broken as written.

If those are the best of the best for taking out casters then it can easily be said that it must be hard to shut them down. If it is hard to shut one down and just as hard to shut another down (like it tends to be hard to shut down just about any class completely) then there isnt much that is wrong here.

Still, mages are pretty fragile for a number of reasons, but then so are psions. Psions tend to not care as much about some of the things that really effect mages but are more hindered in other areas.

If people feel that mages are treated unfairly in this comparison then maybe getting rid of a few sacred cows will help.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> You didn't actually read a single word I wrote, did you?




yes I did, then said that the others had explained the situation well. Did you not read what they said? After that, I went on to explain a little more about what I was trying to say and basically just a little blurb about what I do. There is no need for you to be rude about it. Apparently you didnt know how the raw works, now you do.


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Still, mages are pretty fragile for a number of reasons, but then so are psions. Psions tend to not care as much about some of the things that really effect mages but are more hindered in other areas.



I have seen no such hindrance.

In each case, when we bring up areas where side-to-side comparisons with other arcane casters, the pro-psions do there best to say: "But that's no big deal".  The over-use of the tactic speaks volumes.  

If game balance were a scale, the psion side would be touching bottom, while Sor/Wiz would be up there hanging.


----------



## Galfridus (Jun 7, 2005)

I've been thinking about this all morning, and apart from spell-specific tweaks, the issue for me boils down to limiting a Psion's single-encounter output.
I had two ideas -- both are fairly radical, but can be added to the existing rules without 

-- Some sort of "overload" cost, where using lots of PPs in successive rounds causes some sort of penalty.

-- Splitting up the PP pool into smaller than 24 hour segments; for example, the psion gets 1/4 of his PP total for the first 6 hours, 1/4 for the next 6 hours, etc.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> In the previous session, the party had just slain a dragon -- not just a dragon, but THE dragon, the dragon that was the central NPC for more or less the entire game. It was a large fight -- the Psion used Bend Reality several times, maximized Crystal Shards, etc., and was down to about 25% of his PP. He and one other PC then got caught in a teleport trap and ended up fighting a four person team of 16th level NPCs. He got _mazed_; when he came back, it was him against a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Rogue, who were ready for him.
> 
> Round 1: Wizard Chain Lightnings him, Rogue shoots him (only hitting once due to +13 Inertial Armor). He manifests _Temporal Acceleration_, and summons an Astral Construct 9 (overchannel / Talented), which kills the wizard in one round. The cleric tries to Dispel the construct and fails.
> 
> ...




Definately interesting, I do have a few questions though.

Why did the mage use such a sucky spell? If it was 3 on 1 he could easily have readied his action to disrupt anything that the psion tried to manifest first of all, or he could've used, say, a simple enervation (possibly empowered/maximized/quickend with a rod) practically would've ended the encounter right there, or even disentegrate (nonelemental damage, much higher damage on a failed save and about the same damage on a successful one, possible crit chance). He also had access to 8th level spells so maybe he could've even mazed the psion again after he was blasted by the other two people he was with.

The rogue did nothing at all? Now, I havent played many high level rogues, but I assume they can do more than fire a few arrows, especially given that the people apparently had at least a round to prepare. Still though, +3 bow, +1 point blank shot, +6 dex, +12 BAB, +1 weapon focus, +1 haste (this is all pretty conservative as I dont know what buffs the enemies had put up, but these are basic) = +24. Even vs ac 30 two hits are pretty likely, and if he had gone invis while the people were mazed then the first one would be sneak attack also (for +8d6 damage) this would have also possibly ended the fight right there.

The cleric tried a greater dispel (assuming). Now, did he get the psion in the radius as well? if so then that could be by by to the inertial armor. Personally if I was the cleric I probably would've popped up an antimagic field and waded up to the psion. Heavy armor vs no armor, Medium BAB vs Low BAB, d8hd vs d4hd, along with immunity to just about anything the psion could do.

But then, I dont get why the cleric didnt do something 'before' the psion got to go anyway. The psion had just been hit by a 16d6 lightning bolt, very unlikely to make his save (but possible) probably has energy resistance 10+ (why not, everyone does at these levels, though not usually to lightning, still, benefit of the doubt). So, half damage - 10 = 18 damage. For some reason this wasnt empowered (npc gear is low so that is likely the reason) so this isnt much damage if the save was successful and the psion had some defense up. If the save was failed and the psion had no defenses then 56 damage means the psion would need at least a 14 con to survive (not hard, in fact I would expect it to be at least 16 from items).

Next we have a hit from the rogue, nonsneak attack (is this a real rogue?). We'll say this does 12 damage or so (d8 +3 enhancement +1 point blank +3 str +d6 fire +poison?). Now we are up to 30 damage total even if things are going really well for the psion. If he had been half dead from the ealier part of the fight then he is already dead now.

So, I am not sure what this example is trying to show. One character basically has nothing thrown against him and takes down 3 guys who mostly just stand there and take it without doing anything. A well built tank would've done exactly the same thing in this situation and would've been able to do it several more times that day instead of the psion being completely tapped at this point. (11 + 17 (+focus) +11 +17 (focus) +? = 56 +? is about 25% of his total resources for the day) Along with him being shaken for most of the encounter (important part of this is -2 to saves, skill checks, and ability checks, which means some of those concentration checks might fail and it is easier to fail those saves)


Still, looking at the construct we have a guy that can, at max on a full attack (with extra attack and rending and muscle) 2d6+18 *4 = 120 (non crits, but rolled max on each die). He has an attack bonus of +30 but can only penetrate magic DR and no way to bypass things like displacement. On average, if all hit and no other mitigating factors, this would be 100 damage. So the mage would only need an 18 con or higher or just about any sort of defensive things (blur, displacement, etc) and of course be full on hp (cleric standing by who was apparently not doing anything, might as well be healing if needed).


all in all, I'd have to say that attacking targets that use ineffective tactics and roll poorly isnt a very good comparison. Especially when the construct is apparently criticaling several times in a round and no one has up any sort of defenses.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 7, 2005)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Yeah. Our party's shaper used astral constructs all the time and to great effect. Then we realized that summoning spells (and astral construct) have a full round casting time. I don't think he's used them since.




Yup. Enemies should go out of their way to prevent full round spells or manifestations.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> I have seen no such hindrance.




Then you should read some of the stuff I posted earlier 



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> In each case, when we bring up areas where side-to-side comparisons with other arcane casters, the pro-psions do there best to say: "But that's no big deal".  The over-use of the tactic speaks volumes.




Of course, this is usually once the anti-psi say things like, 'I dont care if the psions are horrible in this large list of areas where other caster types beat them down, only the parts where psions might actually be better matter!'

Why is it that the ways they are behind dont matter but the ways they are ahead are so important that everything is broken? Especially when the ways they are ahead are against things that the others suck at to begin with.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> If game balance were a scale, the psion side would be touching bottom, while Sor/Wiz would be up there hanging.




Rhetoric, I could just as easily say the opposite and it would mean just as much.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 7, 2005)

Another wrinkle in the psion vs. other casters debate.

Psions cannot counterspell. There are no rules for this. They can counter a few spells/powers if the description of the power allows for it, but that is the limit of their ability in this regard.

This includes Dispel Psionics.

If a psion wants to disrupt a caster/psion, he has to do damage or affect the target's mind. Since virtually all of these powers have saves /  spell resistance, normal spell casters have the ability to either counterspell normally, or counterspell with Dispel Magic. Psions do not have this option (and let me tell you, the fact that the psions in our group last Sunday could not counterspell the BBEG Mindflayer from Dimension Dooring allowed him to easily escape).


----------



## Galfridus (Jun 7, 2005)

Good questions, I'll answer as best I can. Probably some of this is due to my quick summary of the situation, we'll see. 



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Why did the mage use such a sucky spell? If it was 3 on 1 he could easily have readied his action to disrupt anything that the psion tried to manifest first of all, or he could've used, say, a simple enervation (possibly empowered/maximized/quickend with a rod) practically would've ended the encounter right there, or even disentegrate (nonelemental damage, much higher damage on a failed save and about the same damage on a successful one, possible crit chance). He also had access to 8th level spells so maybe he could've even mazed the psion again after he was blasted by the other two people he was with.




Enervation could have worked well, true, although it would not have stopped Astral Constructs from appearing (maybe they would be slightly smaller), and it would have taken a good roll to get rid of Temporal Acceleration.

The other high-end spells which the wizard had available were: Otto's Irresistable Dance (not close enough); Power Word Blind (probably should have used this); Mage's Sword; Limited Wish. He went for damage because he figured with the cleric and rogue also attacking, they would drop him fast. 

In retrospect, taking Disintegrate might have been good; with the spells at hand, I think Power Word Blind would have been the best option. He was going to use that next after the psion's hit point total was lower; getting greedy, I guess.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> The rogue did nothing at all? Now, I havent played many high level rogues, but I assume they can do more than fire a few arrows, especially given that the people apparently had at least a round to prepare. Still though, +3 bow, +1 point blank shot, +6 dex, +12 BAB, +1 weapon focus, +1 haste (this is all pretty conservative as I dont know what buffs the enemies had put up, but these are basic) = +24. Even vs ac 30 two hits are pretty likely, and if he had gone invis while the people were mazed then the first one would be sneak attack also (for +8d6 damage) this would have also possibly ended the fight right there.




The rogue was doing some stuff while the psion was mazed (helping deal with the other PC, who ran off). There was no buffs, but the numbers are about right. I did not roll great, which is why there was only one hit per round (with sneak attack damage). This psion has a high Con and the feat that grants extra HP, so has around 132 HP, plus a Contingency Body Adjustment. Still, two more hits would have probably done it.

He had a potion of greater invis, and with no way to know when the psion was coming out, drinking it before he emerged would be a waste. If the psion had stayed in one more round, he would have had a ready action to drink it, but the psion got out a bit too fast.

In retrospect, the rogue could have been slightly more effective, but not a whole lot moreso.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> The cleric tried a greater dispel (assuming).




Yes.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Now, did he get the psion in the radius as well? if so then that could be by by to the inertial armor. Personally if I was the cleric I probably would've popped up an antimagic field and waded up to the psion. Heavy armor vs no armor, Medium BAB vs Low BAB, d8hd vs d4hd, along with immunity to just about anything the psion could do.




This is a failing on my part -- I didn't think of setting the area of the Dispel just right and should have. So yes, one mistake on my part here. The cleric did not have Antimagic Field ready, which was a deliberate choice on my part (it was used against the psion recently and I didn't want to overload that tactic). 



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> But then, I dont get why the cleric didnt do something 'before' the psion got to go anyway. The psion had just been hit by a 16d6 lightning bolt, very unlikely to make his save (but possible) probably has energy resistance 10+ (why not, everyone does at these levels, though not usually to lightning, still, benefit of the doubt). So, half damage - 10 = 18 damage. For some reason this wasnt empowered (npc gear is low so that is likely the reason) so this isnt much damage if the save was successful and the psion had some defense up. If the save was failed and the psion had no defenses then 56 damage means the psion would need at least a 14 con to survive (not hard, in fact I would expect it to be at least 16 from items).




I skipped the part where the cleric dropped a Dimensional Lock so the psion couldn't teleport away (which the PCs tend to do a lot). Sorry for omitting that detail. By the time he got another action, he had a construct in his face and a dead wizard next to him. 

As above, the psion has 132 HP. He failed his save and took 50ish damage from the bolt.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Next we have a hit from the rogue, nonsneak attack (is this a real rogue?). We'll say this does 12 damage or so (d8 +3 enhancement +1 point blank +3 str +d6 fire +poison?). Now we are up to 30 damage total even if things are going really well for the psion. If he had been half dead from the ealier part of the fight then he is already dead now.




The rogue actually got a sneak attack in the first attack, doing 30ish points as I recall. 



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> So, I am not sure what this example is trying to show. One character basically has nothing thrown against him and takes down 3 guys who mostly just stand there and take it without doing anything.




The way I see it, the psion killed one character per action for three rounds. He had Constructs (instantly summoned via Temporal Acceleration) for low AC characters, Maximized area effect Fortitude save spells to deal with rogues, and a Construct with Blindsight to deal with invisibility.

Yes, the NPCs were weaker because their gear was at NPC levels -- but three of them should have a much better shot vs one character. 

The fight was a relatively spontaneous one, so there were minimal buff spells in place (only 1 hour per level ones). I don't think most buff spells would have made a difference -- what stops a Construct from hitting?

I do agree that the psion's tactics were spot-on, and I don't want to minimize that, but I do feel that his killing capacity was higher than other characters of equivalent level. Also, note that his equipment played little to no role in this fight.

EDIT: I think the ideal tactic would be: Wizard does Power Word, Blind; Cleric does Dimensional Anchor; Rogue full attacks, all sneak attacks. This puts the psion on the defensive -- he might even try to teleport away, not knowing of the Dimensional Anchor, and blow a key action.


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Psions cannot counterspell.



Nor can they be counterspelled.  Sounds like a net benefit to me!


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2005)

Sorting through the post back log.   Ufta. I'll say one thing for you, Scion, you sure can type! 


			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Also, if you dont have any problems with wizards/sorcs/clerics then you must have certain ways of dealing with them.



Yup.

Check it out: they all use the same magic system.  For example: They can counterspell each other, they have spells specifically designed to work against another spell caster.

There are no such checks and balances for psions.  _Dismiss Ectoplasm_ for example, does NOT appear on any Wiz/Sor/Clr/Drd class list.

THe psionic system doesn't fit with the rest of the magic system.  As I listed far above, this is one of the main problems.  (And there are others.) 



> The same sort of tactics will work, and generally work better, against the psion.



Other than _Dispel Magic_, the same tactics do NOT work.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Enervation is one of those big weaknesses I was talking about that people dont usually consider. Fairly easy for the caster types to do but the psion has very limited defenses and no real counterpart.

For a 4th level spell an auto d4 negative levels hit the psion right where he lives, his pp total. Each negative level kills enough pp to manifest his highest level power, which for the example above means about a 50/50 chance of simply ending the encounter (the psion was already very low on pp) and with a metamagic rod of empower or maximize (maximize being the obvious favorite here, although the 25% chance of 6 negative levels is definately interesting) would have meant the psion was doomed.

With the power word: Blind that would've meant the end for the psion as well. The construct would have only gotten a single attack rather than a full attack (I am still fuzzy on the range everyone was at, if the wizard had been farther away and outside of the range of the power this encounter would've gone very differently as well).

132 hp for a 16th level psion is definately a good amount.  41.5 on average from levels means 90.5 from other things. Assuming psionic body and all psionic feats (a bonus with a penalty built in) and human means 20 hp from that, so 70.5 from con, which means about a 20 con. Sounds like this guy is pretty rough and tumble, lots of resources put into getting more hp. (of course any character could have gotten improved toughness for +16 hp and not had the restriction of only being able to get psionic feats, assuming that version of toughness is available)

Even if the mage was counting on direct damage though the spell he chose is a poor one. It is kindof nice if facing a horde of weak opponents with your buddies in the middle, but if they are weak enough for this spell to matter then they probably arent a huge threat anyway and there are still other spells which would work much better (like slow for instance, not in damage dealing but with dealing with a large number of weaker foes).

With the contingency an extra 6d12 hp is pretty nice in a flash.. this guy is completely wanting a dispel cast on him, I think that really would've brought him down to 'fish bait' level right away.

All in all, it looks like the mage just choose the wrong spell for the occasion. It happens, but accidentaly trying to go up against a characters strength (in this case a bunch of resources dumped into actually having hp) doesnt make the character broken. Just like tossing a will save spell against a guy who normally has a low will save but who dumped a bunch of resources into making it his best.


As for the rogue, I am just not sure what he is doing. He mainly just stands there and tries to look pretty. More or less I just discount his entire presence in the battle (how is he getting sneak attack by the way? shouldnt be any surprise, he isnt invisible, he might even be too far away, etc) He seems a bit distracted and ineffective  Maybe he is primarily skill based instead of combat based, which does happen.


Mainly it just sounds like the npcs had no effective gear, had no defenses, had the wrong spells prepared to be effectively offensive, but were great at keeping the psion there. Poor rolling for the bad guys and good rolling for the good guys tipped the balance in favor of the psion who could've been killed by slightly different rolling several different times in the encounter or by slightly different spellcasting by the opponents.

Overall, given that the psion still nearly died even with all of this in his favor I dont think it shows anything either way. A fighter type character would've performed exactly the same given the same conditions, most character types who put in for a good amount of hp would have in fact.


Still though, I am confused by how the construct managed to do what he did. I went through the numbers above and unless the psion was rolling 'really' well for his construct I still dont see it doing what it apparently did. (well, rolling very well, being able to get full attacks each round somehow, getting crits, enemies having low con scores and no items to help with it, etc) It is apparent that these 3 guys would've been destroyed by any competant fighter type.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Check it out: they all use the same magic system.




yep, even psions, given transparency is the default condition.

Personally, I dont care about counterspelling either way. I have never seen it used. But, for completeness, what logic chain do you go through to say that psionics cannot be countered useing dispel magic?



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> There are no such checks and balances for psions.  _Dismiss Ectoplasm_ for example, does NOT appear on any Wiz/Sor/Clr/Drd class list.




Cure light wounds does not appear on the psion/psychic warrior/wilder list.
Haste does not appear..
Heal/harm..
Silent image..
Or a couple of hundred other spells

Your point?

There are checks and balances all over, you have even shown some yourself before. Overstating to that degree wont help 



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> THe psionic system doesn't fit with the rest of the magic system.




Since it 'is' a magic system stylistically and since it has been designed to fit and since I have seen no problems in any games I have been in nor heard any real problems other than asthetics (which are too campaign dependent to be important, the color green might not fit into a given campaign after all) I'd have to say that isnt true.

It fits in fine, it isnt even majorly different than the other versions of magic. It is just as different from arcane as arcane and divine are different sure, but that is a good thing, that way they arent all exactly the same.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Other than _Dispel Magic_, the same tactics do NOT work.




Sure they do, some work slightly better, some slightly worse. There are a couple of broken ones for each system which still need to be worked out (3.75? 4.0? 10.9?) but that is only a matter of time and work.


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2005)

*Back to Astral Contsruct*



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> ...we are comparing something that is designed to do one thing to another which only 'can' do that one thing but also has lots of other uses.



So, you are saying: "A-C does only combat, while SM does combat plus extras.  Therefore they are balanced."  Sounds to me like we can (are are) comparing them! 

The direct response to your assertion is: "But A-C does _much_ better in combat, and can do many of the out-of-combat roles as well."  This has been done time and again above.  Again, as a divine specialist summoner in the same party as a psion(shaper), I've had ample opportunities to compare head-to-head.

Again: a _specialist_ in summoning vs a _specialist_ in Astral Constructs.  The comparison is as close as we're liable to get.




			
				Scion said:
			
		

> ....it doesnt matter how good or bad summon monster is compared to astral construct, that is the point, they do different things.



I disagree.  They do much the same thing.  People in our group often get confused by both of us summoning/constructing.  

"Nail, how come his <the A-C> are so much better than yours <summoned monsters>?"    

(Yep, the others leap on his joke set-up super-quick.)


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> 132 hp for a 16th level psion is definately a good amount.



Our group's psion (Psi(shaper) 15) has at least 20hp more than that.  Ans he uses them too, with Overchannel.[/QUOTE]

As for the rest of the encounter analysis: sure, mistakes were made.  That's the way combat works.  And yet the example still holds.

Besides, I've seen our psion do similar things to bad guys.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> So, you are saying: "A-C does only combat, while SM does combat plus extras.  Therefore they are balanced."  Sounds to me like we can (are are) comparing them!




So I guess you didnt actually read what I had to say?  Unfortunate.

Still though, here goes another try. One is a specialist ability that works only in a single set of situations vs another that is general and works in a broad range of situations.

If you compare them and say that the ac is better in combat what have you proven as far as balance goes? Zero.

So, why bother even trying? why not just answer the question I posed rather than introducing one that will leave the important question still hanging while not actually giving any useful data?

By all means, compare the two to your hearts content, but in the end after you have shown whatever it is you are trying to then you still cannot say whether ac is balanced or not.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> The direct response to your assertion is: "But A-C does _much_ better in combat, and can do many of the out-of-combat roles as well."  This has been done time and again above.  Again, as a divine specialist summoner in the same party as a psion(shaper), I've had ample opportunities to compare head-to-head.




Divine specialist summoner. I have asked before what you have done to make this guy a specialist and shown how he is already behind the curve before even starting to try.

The divine guy does not have much to choose from to specialize. There is the +4/+4 feat but it has a prereq which does not help summoning, there are no other feats that I know of off hand to help him. He might have a couple of domains to help his summonings, but what these are and what they might do I dont know.

So, as far as I can tell, your 'specialized divine summoner' has one feat to help him and at the same time cuts his own summoning list down by half or more. woo. Sounds like he seriously needs more options to be considered a real specialist.

If the man with two legs can walk faster than the man with one leg you dont cut off one of the first guys legs to make them even.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Again: a _specialist_ in summoning vs a _specialist_ in Astral Constructs.  The comparison is as close as we're liable to get.




Of course, it is a horrible comparison in a number of different ways that I have already said.

If you want to, go right ahead, but it wont prove anything useful.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> I disagree.  They do much the same thing.  People in our group often get confused by both of us summoning/constructing.
> 
> "Nail, how come his <the A-C> are so much better than yours <summoned monsters>?"




I guess you should ask them, 'at doing what?' because there are areas where the ac's are better and areas where the summoning is better.

If you pick only a narrow band then sure, one of them will likely be better. But then if you pick a different band then it switches. At that point who is better?

They both make extra critters on the field which can do things, in that they are the same. However, their purposes and roles are different.

Just like if you have 2 characters on the field, say a rogue and a fighter, sometimes they will do the same thing, but they have talents in completely different areas and their uses are very different. Directly comparing them in a single situation will show that one is better than the other, but does that mean that overall one is better than the other? They have different jobs, they have different skills, they go about things in different ways.

Like I have said though, go ahead and compare, but when you are done what will you have proven?

Even if you show that constructs are better in every way, every circumstance, 100% of the time completely superior it *still* wont mean that constructs are overpowered, it could simply mean that summons are underpowered, or that they are still roughly equal but the constructs are ahead but not necissarily by enough to need to be changed, or it could even mean that constructs are horrendously overpowered. But you cannot get a true answer out of it, only a glance at a guage vs an unknown.


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> yep, even psions, given transparency is the default condition.



Not entirely true.  When I've asked for psion-counters, most turn out to be either extremely specialized (Globe of Invul.) or from other psions.

Doesn't sound like a transparent and integrated system.  Sounds to me like there are some major mis-matches.  (I and others have listed them above.)



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> But, for completeness, what logic chain do you go through to say that psionics cannot be countered useing dispel magic?



Far better to simply directly target the psion with a _Greater Dispel Magic_.  Why try for one, when you can get them all?

I've seen counterspelling used....but not often.  The last time it happened involved the BBEG wearing a ring of counterspells.  That was a great trick.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Cure light wounds does not appear on the psion/psychic warrior/wilder list.
> Haste does not appear..
> Heal/harm..
> Silent image..
> ...



You've missed it?  Okay....

(BTW: the equivalent of many of those spells above _do_ appear on a Psion's list.  And Wiz/Sor doesn't get Heal, Harm, CLW, etc.)

All the spell-casting classes have different lists, and yet:
there are counters for Asn spells on Clr lists,
there are counters for Drd spells on the Sor list,
there are counters for Wiz spells on the Rgr list,
etc.
There are precious few counters for Psion's powers on any[/i] other class list!

BTW: Hey, I could be wrong.     I'd love to get a HUGE list of normal magic counters for psion powers.  I'd love it.  Really!

And I'd rather not hear _Dispel Magic_ again.  That's a gimme.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Jun 7, 2005)

Well, Mind Blank by itself is a very good counter, since many of the psion's powers are mind-affecting. 
Let's compare a specialized undead-fighting wizard to a specialized undead-fighting cleric...obviously Turn Undead must be overpowered...right?


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Our group's psion (Psi(shaper) 15) has at least 20hp more than that.  Ans he uses them too, with Overchannel.
> 
> As for the rest of the encounter analysis: sure, mistakes were made.  That's the way combat works.  And yet the example still holds.
> 
> Besides, I've seen our psion do similar things to bad guys.




Your psion has 152 hp at level 15? now that guy has dumped some major, major resources into hp. Probably a +6 con item as he needs a +7 con mod item (39hp from hd, 20hp from feat, 90+hp from con).

If your character often has setups that work directly to his strengths and his opponents do silly things and roll poorly while the character rolls well I'd have to say that this isnt an issue with any particular class.

If your psion has that many hp and burns through them with overchannel (which, in this case, burns up hp and pp and an extraordinary rate) then he is in major trouble.

Psions in games I have seen who are frugal with their pp run out pretty quickly, let alone someone who is spending them even faster along with burning up hp.

I dont know what kind of game you are in, but it sounds pretty crazy to me. 150+hp caster classes at level 15, infinite pp, unlimited rest time, unbounded prep time, no dispels, npcs have few defenses and no tactics.. I'd have to say it isnt the psion that is the problem given what I have heard so far ;/


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2005)

Yoowza!  I may have to bow out just 'cause Scion can type faster!  Curse my skipping typing class during summer school, all those years ago!!







			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Divine specialist summoner. I have asked before what you have done to make this guy a specialist .....



Clr 15
Domain: Summoning
Feat: Augment Summoning
Feat: Domain Spontaneity (Summoning)
Feat: Divine Summoner (house rule, spend turn attempts to decrease casting time)
PrC: Shining Summoner (house rule, some "flavor" powers, like all summoned creatures shine like Light spell, extra turning feat, etc)

I've spent more feats (and even taken a PrC!) than the Psion has.  His A-C are still better.  (Sigh)

BTW, I'm not saying SM sucks.  It doesn't.  It's great spell.  My SMs kick righteous butt, compared to all the rest of the members of the party (who are no slouches themselves).  .....but compared to the Psion(shaper)?  I'm small-time.

My SMs wear down the competition.  His A-C take them out in 1 round.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Not entirely true.  When I've asked for psion-counters, most turn out to be either extremely specialized (Globe of Invul.) or from other psions.
> 
> Doesn't sound like a transparent and integrated system.  Sounds to me like there are some major mis-matches.




You are selectively reading my posts then 

Also, the systems are integrated easily and fit seemlessly. I have never seen any issue aside from asthetics (which are unimportant).



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Far better to simply directly target the psion with a _Greater Dispel Magic_.  Why try for one, when you can get them all?




Which is in line with what I said before, but completely ignores my question.

I agree that targeting the psion to get rid of buffs is generally a good option, as it is vs just about every character ever, but some instantaneous spells/powers you wont get that option.

Now, if you would be so kind as to answer the question?



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> You've missed it?  Okay....
> 
> (BTW: the equivalent of many of those spells above _do_ appear on a Psion's list.  And Wiz/Sor doesn't get Heal, Harm, CLW, etc.)




Yes, I missed them, they dont appear in my psionics handbook nor in the srd.

What magical source are you drawing from? Maybe if I had this imaginary version I could understand where you are coming from.

Until then though, I am going to stick with what I actually have.

Also, just because something appears on the wiz list but not on the clr list or the other way around matters as much as if something is on the wiz list but not on the psi and the other way around and something on the clr list but not on the psion and the other way around. Each has something the others cant do. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses.

If you point to one thing that the psions can do that the others cant then I'll point to something they can do that the psion cant. Since there are at least 3x as many spells as their are powers (many unique to magic) I'll have stuff left over to point out on magics side after you run out of things psions have.

Now, I dont mean the imaginary material comment above to be snippy, but if you are going to say that something has an equivalent when it _does not_ then I will have to assume you are making something up. Feel free to list the equivalent to each thing I put above, maybe I have missed them.

(for the record: body adjustment is not the equivalent to any of the cures, the first is personal only, much less efficient, and cannot be used offensively. the only thing they do similarly is that they heal damage, but they are no where near equivalent.)



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> All the spell-casting classes have different lists, and yet:
> there are counters for Asn spells on Clr lists,
> there are counters for Drd spells on the Sor list,
> there are counters for Wiz spells on the Rgr list,
> ...





I have to admit, I have zero idea what you are talking about here. Do you mean things like deathward, delay poison, and.. I dont know.. I havent a clue. This seems to be completely random so I am guessing it is just smoke and mirrors designed to confuse the issue.

Please, I'd love to know 'what' you are trying to say here.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> BTW: Hey, I could be wrong.     I'd love to get a HUGE list of normal magic counters for psion powers.  I'd love it.  Really!
> 
> And I'd rather not hear _Dispel Magic_ again.  That's a gimme.




So, the one that is the universal counter is a gimme. All right.

How about mind blank? Spell turning? Offensively enervation is such a massive hit it is incredible (yes, much more so to psions than other caster types).

Those have all already been given in this thread and there are others.

But, I still have no idea what you mean by 'counters', the only thing I can think you mean are the spells like deathward or maybe haste vs slow. But those dont make any sense for this topic.


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> I dont know what kind of game you are in, but it sounds pretty crazy to me. 150+hp caster classes at level 15, infinite pp, unlimited rest time, unbounded prep time, no dispels, npcs have few defenses and no tactics.. I'd have to say it isnt the psion that is the problem given what I have heard so far ;/



The psion has below DMG average wealth.  He has rolled stats, but they're in the 32 pt buy range.  He's a dwarf, so his Con is high. He knows the rules well, and we all trust that he's not sheating in some way.

Last week we finished a large two part running battle with an army of giants, ettins, athaches, etc.  I DMed.  Several PCs (APL 15) nearly died.  The Psion ended the night with only 1/3 of his PP left, and about 2/3 of his hp left.

The psion also ended the night with the most confirmed kills.

As for rest time: They can teleport.  'Nuff said.


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> You are selectively reading my posts then .



 

I'm certainly _targeting_ my responses.  Surgical strike!!


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Yoowza!  I may have to bow out just 'cause Scion can type faster!  Curse my skipping typing class during summer school, all those years ago!!




Normally I wouldnt even be here during the week, but I am waiting for my experiment to stop running to I can compile some more data..mmm.. wave of the future.. spread sheets.. soo tired... ;/



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Clr 15
> Domain: Summoning   _*where is this from? what does it do?*_
> Feat: Augment Summoning _*+4 str/+4 con, effectively a menu C choice always on for all summonings I guess so we can do this weird comparison of yours  *_
> Feat: Domain Spontaneity (Summoning) _*where is this from? what does it do? I am guessing it makes all of your domain slots useable for any domain spells spontaneously, this really isnt helping the summon part of the build much at all, it helps keep the character more versitile in other areas rather than make summoning stronger*_
> ...




I added some stuff in above, can you answer the questions? 

Overall it looks like you have spent 1 feat to increase the power of the summons and one more feat to give up other resources to do cast them faster (how much and how fast I have no idea).

You have spent 1 domain to make summons better but I dont know what it does to help them (my guess would be + caster level, making them last longer and be tougher to dispel all of the time)

There is also a prc which may or may not improve the summons at all. If it is anything like the summoner prc from a different book I have seen (relics and rituals maybe?) then it is possible it will have double duration for summons, some extra buffs, metamagic applied for free, or some other beanies.


It just isnt enough to go on to tell anything.

Plus, in the end, it could come down to trying to force something that your character is very weak in to begin with into something viable.

Given by what you have said I would have to say you have made it viable even with all of the detriments you have to put up with just by being a cleric summoner. Good job 

Now, lets say that your summons are always worse than the constructs just for a baseline. Your character still has better party buffs, better healing, better undead turning ability, more spells to cast per day, the whole cleric spell list, better armor profs, better hd, better BAB, and likely a few other things as well.

All in all, your character has a lot of betters tossed in, which should make him a little worse in other areas. You put in your licks and made your guy viable for what he wanted to do. But the guy who is far behind in all of those areas has put in his licks and is better at it overall (although, given that you might be able to make your guys as a standard action and buff them up, and who knows what else all at the same time I would find the initial assumption of the ac always being better hard to swallow) seems as it should be.


Even given any power differences I would have to say that standard action summon monster beats 1 round action Ac out of the water, down the beach and all the way to the city.


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> The psion has below DMG average wealth.  He has rolled stats, but they're in the 32 pt buy range.  He's a dwarf, so his Con is high. He knows the rules well, and we all trust that he's not sheating in some way.
> 
> Last week we finished a large two part running battle with an army of giants, ettins, athaches, etc.  I DMed.  Several PCs (APL 15) nearly died.  The Psion ended the night with only 1/3 of his PP left, and about 2/3 of his hp left.
> 
> ...




I have no idea what he is doing then. I wouldnt accuse the guy of cheating but something is seriously up and I bet there are a lot of little factors here and there that add up to this situation. I 'highly' doubt it has anything to do with any particular class but merely how the character is played and a thousand other little variable with the rest of the group and the campaign in general.

For all we know he might just roll lucky all of the time while playing (even a little above average with the rest of the party a little below average will show as a major discontinuity over time.. and if the party member has a bad night every now and then it might be washed under the rug and ignored while the times he came out ahead put on the spotlight).

As for teleport, I have played and dm'd in high level campaigns, just because you can sometimes get away and try to sleep does 'not' make it a good option for dozens of various reasons.

I'd still love to know how that guy has over 152hp though, especially while still having a good int (for extra pp) and only having a 32 point buy. Even an 20 con, 18 int would only barely cut it, and that leaves straight 8's everywhere else.

Edit: thinking it over a little more we are talking about a guy going up against very high hp critters (giants tend to be that way) with lots of close up offense but genereally weak on the distance offense and medium to low on defense (depending on the giant type)

At maximum blasts the psion will get less than 10 shots a day (195 base, 52 stat assuming 24 int, no racial = 247, 18 points per blast with overchannel and taking 5d8 damage this will give him 13 blasts with no other powers.. so no defenses at all) It would likely take 2 blasts to kill any one giant and they are pretty big so even catching 3 in an area effect would be unlikely.. but we'll say 3 and no risk of hurting allies for whatever reason. This means a maximum killed number of giants of 39 and killing himself nearly twice over (avg 292.5 damage)

So, even under optimal conditions, using everything he has, not being attacked back and being incredibly lucky I dont see how the above would've been terribly possible without some incredible rolls and party tactics. Useing constructs would've been less effective damage wise but would've saved the party from being hit as much, tradeoffs.

Overall, it just sounds to me like he is a good tactical player, knows how to make enemies play to his strengths, has good party members helping him out, and was very lucky.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 7, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> There is no need for you to be rude about it. Apparently you didnt know how the raw works, now you do.



 Heh.  It's certainly not ME making absurd and baseless assumptions about what another person thinks and understands, sir:



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Did you not read what they said? After that, I went on to explain a little more about what I was trying to say and basically just a little blurb about what I do.



 Since I've yet to see any sign that you understand what *I* wrote, allow me to give you a little hint: Internal Inconsistency.  It's not negated or in any way trumped by anything you've said.

There.  Enough of this tangent.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 7, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Nor can they be counterspelled.  Sounds like a net benefit to me!




Incorrect.

The Magic Transparency rules and the Counterspell rules of Dispel Magic allow them to be counterspelled (even though they are not casting spells).


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Internal Inconsistency




Please check the title of the forum you are in.

Also, what you have said is very subjective, much like the 'common sense' rulings.

The reasoning you have given above is very similar to why some dms disallow reflex saves from fireballs unless you are standing behind something (yes, I have heard this houserule. no, not just from one guy).


----------



## Scion (Jun 7, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Incorrect.
> 
> The Magic Transparency rules and the Counterspell rules of Dispel Magic allow them to be counterspelled (even though they are not casting spells).




I have actually seen reasoning on both sides of this issue, that is why I asked what logic path nail was following to make the conclusion


----------



## Spatula (Jun 7, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Enervation is one of those big weaknesses I was talking about that people dont usually consider. Fairly easy for the caster types to do



Fairly easy for sorcerer and wizards.  There's no core method for other caster types to access the spell.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> but the psion has very limited defenses



...which puts the psion in the same boat as everyone else.  Negative levels are hard to avoid.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> and no real counterpart.



What is Mindwipe, then?

(the overall point is sound - enervation is very useful against psions, as it is against all pure casters)


----------



## Scion (Jun 8, 2005)

enervation isnt mind effecting nor does it give a save  (touch attack vs saving throw, generally I consider the touch attack to be the more powerful option, as it can critical and be used in special attacks like sneak attack, but can be a tough call)

But it is very close, I was thinking that it had a longer manifestation time for some reason. Probably thinking of a different power though.

I actually had a npc undead caster use enervation to charge himself up every once in awhile..sort of like his own little drug  Not a viable option for the psionic version  will have to houserule it I guess.


----------



## dedicated (Jun 8, 2005)

one thing you guys need to take into mind when gauging a psions damage power is that spells are more commonly area affecting then powers
(at least for lower levels, my party has only had one psion (he worked out fine))


----------



## Spatula (Jun 8, 2005)

These threads have been around since the XPH has come out, and we still have the same posters (primarily Scion and Thanee) making the same arguments they were over a year ago.  Don't you guys ever get sick of making the same posts, directed to the same people, over and over?  How about a psionics-is-overpowered-no-its-not thread that the 'old guard' doesn't turn into the latest platform to voice their disagreement with each other on the topic?

Just an idea.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 8, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> As I said before, it does effect casters more than manifestors, generally speaking. However, as we get into higher levels the caster types will effectively always have an answer for it, or they are simply asking to be killed. Blocking off weaknesses is part of high level play. There are quite a few ways around this, some easier than others, some more mundane than others.
> 
> But, I did say that psions have an easier time, but they are both hindered by it.




If you're going to admit that psions have an easier time with grapples and are completely unaffected by silence, then why do you continue to maintain that conventional casters are just as difficult to shut down as psions?



> Also, there are spells with no somatic components, and the divine casters will tend to have an easier time at it than the arcane guys also. Once again, there are differences in the weaknesses but there are issues that are shared.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Scion (Jun 8, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> If you're going to admit that psions have an easier time with grapples and are completely unaffected by silence, then why do you continue to maintain that conventional casters are just as difficult to shut down as psions?




Lol!!

Ok, I can pretty much sum up an answer to most of your post right here. I have already gone over it repeatidly, but hey, whatever 

Psions are less hindered by some things and more hindered by others. I already said they had slightly different issues with grappling than other casters.

Still though, for every advantage that you can come up with one direction there is a disadvantage in another. However, whenever the disadvantages are brought up they are swept under the rug with people saying, 'well, it isnt important'. Well guess what, because of that I have no problem doing it right back at the nay sayers.

Which brings me to this:


			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> As for spell ranges, that's somewhat off topic.




Again, anything that the other casters do better is apparently irrelevant, anything that the psions do better is broken. Anyone else see a problem here?

In some games the longest of ranges might not matter, but I would assume that in most games the difference between short and medium range will definately be felt. With so many psionic powers falling into the personal and short range instead of longer ranges this is a pretty serious drawback. Much, much larger than even if the psion was completely immune to grapples (which he isnt by a long shot) and silence (broken spell, if we are going to say that broken spells are ok to court around then I'll bring up gate and end the discussion right there as it beats effectively everything else out there).

Range is very important. Incredibly so.

Also, nearly all of the powers that you said that would help get a psion out of a grapple are psychic warrior only, nice that. Caster types have a ton more options that work to various degrees of succes (dim door being the best here for everyone) but then wizards have way more choices for spells. Eh, but that isnt something that can be used to bash the psion so obviously it is unimportant.


As for the sacred cows. Not being able to cast in armor isnt really a balancing point, it is merely a sacred cow that isnt necissarily. It doesnt even fit thematically in my eyes. Besides, they can wear armor and use shields with 0% spell failure with a little effort so ::shrugs:: either way.

There are several issues going on in this thread and various people keep jumping around randomly. I would suggest again to read through the threads I posted earlier. Sure, it'll take some time, but if anyone cares enough to actually wonder about balancing then it'll be a good thing to read. Not everything can be put down to a couple of paragraphs after all.


Eh, this is a longer post than I wanted, but I wanted to get that initial laugh out. Craziness has replaced everything else in this topic, as is the norm. Some people have had issues in their games, I have never seen any big issues ever. In fact, I have so many more issues with the magic system as written (mostly from being too underpowerd in some areas and too horribly overpowered in others) that anyone saying that they want psions to be as balanced as magic is in the core sounds like insanity. Trying to take one system that has only a few fairly minor issues and make it as 'balanced' as a system with huge, gaping holes? No thanks, I'll stick with psionics, make a few minor changes for campaign reasons, and then overhaul the magic system. It is easier that way and more balanced in the long run.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 8, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Lol!!
> 
> Ok, I can pretty much sum up an answer to most of your post right here. I have already gone over it repeatidly, but hey, whatever
> 
> Psions are less hindered by some things and more hindered by others. I already said they had slightly different issues with grappling than other casters.




I don't think slightly means what you think it means....



> Still though, for every advantage that you can come up with one direction there is a disadvantage in another.




You've had quite a while to come up with relevant disadvantages (specifically wrt vulnerabilities) and the best you can do so far is range. That's worth discussing, but I think it establishes the fact that conventional spell users are more vulnerable to various tactics that might hinder or prevent spellcasting than psions are. (On this, my own take (as a player) is that the difficulty of preventing psions from using their powers means that the only safe way to transport a captive psion is dead).



> However, whenever the disadvantages are brought up they are swept under the rug with people saying, 'well, it isnt important'.




One would hope that people would also give reasons why stuff is less important. (For instance, a paladin's immunity to disease is not very important because disease is not a large part of most games and, for the most part, is easily cured by either low-level magic or heal checks).



> Well guess what, because of that I have no problem doing it right back at the nay sayers.




Which is a problem. Because someone else appears to have missed a step in their logic, you willingly abandon rational discourse altogether. Neener neener neener. I wish you wouldn't.



> Again, anything that the other casters do better is apparently irrelevant, anything that the psions do better is broken. Anyone else see a problem here?




Well, yes. First, you appear to misunderstand my purpose in posting to the thread which is to establish that, yes, it is more difficult to prevent a psion from using his powers than to prevent a conventional caster from casting. In that regard, spell ranges are a red herring.

Second, you miss the important distinction between conventional casters as a group (who do not all have long-range spells) and sorcerer/wizards (who do).

Third, I have not said that psions are broken because it is hard to prevent them from using their powers; I have simply said that that is one advantage they have over conventional casters.



> In some games the longest of ranges might not matter,




Make that most games and you'll be talking. I've been playing 3.x for about five years now in a variety of different home and living campaigns and there has been precisely one time that I thought "wow, long range sure is useful." That one time was a battle interactive where we were playing out a siege--hardly your standard D&D.



> but I would assume that in most games the difference between short and medium range will definately be felt.




At least at the early levels. It's not such a big deal as it used to be by the time short range reaches 60-70 feet....



> With so many psionic powers falling into the personal and short range instead of longer ranges this is a pretty serious drawback. Much, much larger than even if the psion was completely immune to grapples (which he isnt by a long shot) and silence




Hmm, from the D-F section of the SRD:

Deja Vu (medium)
Disintegrate, psionic (medium)
Dispel psionics (medium)
Dominate, psionic (medium)
Ectoplasmic coccoon (medium)
mass ectoplasmic coccoon (medium)
ectoplasmic shambler (long)
ego whip (medium)
energy ball (long, but kineticist power)
energy bolt (120' line)
energy cone (60' cone)
energy missile (medium, but kineticist power)
energy push (medium)
energy wall (medium)
energy wave (120' cone)
false sensory input (long)

That seems like a pretty good selection of non-short range powers to me and that's just from d-f. Note that it includes psionic dominate, ego whip, energy bolt, energy ball, and energy missile (a kinticist power a lot of other psions spend a feat to get) as well as psionic disintegrate. That's considerably better than the medium range cleric and druid list and about as good as the medium range arcane spells.



> (broken spell, if we are going to say that broken spells are ok to court around then I'll bring up gate and end the discussion right there as it beats effectively everything else out there).




What, psions are immune to gate?!? I never knew. What page is that on?

I'm not talking about what broken things a class can do in this thread. I'm talking about the things that other people _can't_ do to psions. That psions can't cast gate is irrelevant to the topic. That they can't be shut down by silence is relevant.



> Range is very important. Incredibly so.
> 
> Also, nearly all of the powers that you said that would help get a psion out of a grapple are psychic warrior only, nice that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sithobi1 (Jun 8, 2005)

His "Little Effort" means using Twilight Mithral Shirt+x and a Mithral Buckler+x.
A disadvantage that psionic characters have to regular casters is metapsionics. You need 3 feats: Psicrystal Affinity, Psicrystal Containment, and Psionic Mediation just to be decent at using metapsionic feats, as opposed to regular casters, who don't have to take care of their foci.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Jun 8, 2005)

Here is the first part of my examination of the game mechanics in the XPH.  The second part will look at psionic powers specifically, if I get the time.

My essential conclusion: Psionic spellcasting is unbalanced as against spellcasting by divine and arcane spellcasters as presented in the core rules.  The XPH is a power up D&D supplement, much like the "Complete" series.

D&D v.3.x incorporates some fundamental design philosophies which need to be borne in mind when assessing the integrity of any new rules or design options.  The primary design philosophy is simple – D&D is a tactical wargame.  You can LARP it up all you want, but at the end of the day, the RAW only support a tactical wargame.  Everything else is a necessary byproduct of individuals’ playing styles.  What flows from this conclusion is that the RAW _must assume_ that players will optimise their choices within the ruleset to gain maximum advantage for their characters.  Furthermore, the RAW _must not assume_ that there will be any balance to this optimisation by individuals’ (DMs’ or players’) playing style.

Within this context, let’s examine a number of features of the Expanded Psionics Handbook (XPH) against the SRD.

*Power points vs Vancian spellcasting*

The XPH introduces a system of spellcasting which departs from the system presented in the SRD.  Let’s not pretend that psionics is not just another spellcasting system.

In the following discussion, I will talk about “degrees of freedom” and “degrees of limitation” in spellcasting.  Essentially, I’m talking about the flexibility inherent in a particular form of spellcasting.

There are four degrees of limitation and freedom:
·	*spells accessible:* what spells a character can potentially draw upon;
·	*spells prepared:* what spells a character can actually draw upon during a day;
·	*spells per day:* how many spells a character can cast in a day; and
·	*spells per level:* the composition, by level, of the spells a character can cast in a day.

Vancian spellcasting for divine classes is characterised by three degrees of limitation: spells prepared, spells per day, and spells per level; and one degree of freedom: spells accessible.

Vancian spellcasting for wizards is characterised by four degrees of limitation: spells accessible, spells prepared, spells per day, and spells per level.  While it is true that a wizard can theoretically have all sorcerer/wizard spells in their spellbooks, as a practical matter this is impossible.  Hence, in practice, spells accessible is a degree of limitation for wizards, although relatively less of a limitation than that faced by spontaneous spellcasters.

Spontaneous spellcasting is characterised by three degrees of limitation: spells accessible, spells per day, and spells per level; and one degree of freedom: spells prepared.

I note that there are other variations on the degrees of limitation and freedom for spellcasters which have been presented in supplements, notably through the alternative core classes in Complete Divine and Complete Arcane.  This analysis can be used to decide whether those systems are balanced with the systems in the SRD, but I don’t propose to do so.  I’m just looking at the XPH.

Psionic spellcasting is characterised by two degrees of limitation: spells accessible and spells per day; and two degrees of freedom: spells prepared and spells per level.

Firstly, it should be noted that psionic spellcasting has more degrees of freedom (and consequently fewer degrees of limitation) than the spellcasting options presented in the SRD.  The spells per level degree of freedom is often manifested in the observation that “psions can use their highest level powers [i.e. cast their highest level spells] until their power points run out”.  Since all power points [= spell points] form one universal resource from which to cast spells (the power point pool), psionic spellcasters are not bound to limit their spellcasting to fixed numbers of spells of certain levels.  Although the SRD spellcasters have the flexibility to use a spell slot of a given level for a spell of a lower level, SRD spellcasters cannot combine spell slots of lower levels to cast higher level spells.

Secondly, psionic spellcasters are more easily able to reduce the impact of the spells accessible degree of limitation than SRD spellcasters because psionic spells often duplicate the effects of multiple SRD spells through augmentation.

Let’s not make any bones about it.  The game designers freely acknowledge that spell point pool spellcasting, as exemplified for in XPH, increases the power of the spellcaster.  Read the Behind the Curtain sidebar on Spell Points on p154 of Unearthed Arcana.  [My personal recommendation is that if you introduce XPH-style psionics into a campaign, in conjunction with it, introduce the spell point system described in Unearth Arcana for arcane spellcasters at the very least.]  Even though spells cast with spell points are not “freely scalable” (i.e. effects increase with caster level independent of spell level), augmentation as ruled in the XPH grants increased flexibility, so the “balancing” effect of higher spell points for greater effect is somewhat diminished.

*A comparison of spellcasting by sorcerers, wizards and psions*

If one converts sorcerers and wizard spells per day into spell points, and compares them to the spell points possessed by a psion, at all but the lowest class levels:
·	a sorcerer has more spell points than a psion; and
·	a psion has more spell points than a wizard.

So a psion fits somewhere between a sorcerer and a wizard in terms of daily absolute spellcasting potential.  But then consider the following:
·	a psion knows more spells per level (with the exception of 0-2nd level spells at higher class levels) than a sorcerer; and
·	a psion acquires his highest level spells one class level earlier than a sorcerer (and the same level as a wizard).
Then there are other aspects to the psion and psionic spellcasting which cannot be overlooked:
·	a psion gains bonus feats like a wizard;
·	a psion can cast any spell at a higher caster level than he has class levels or character levels, through the Overchannel feat, an ability which is barred to arcane spellcasters.  The negative effects of Overchannel can be mitigated with another feat, Talented.

*Psionicists are not affected by physical limitations*

SRD arcane spellcasters suffer considerable physical limitations on their spellcasting abilities.  These fall into two classes:
·	arcane failure chance from armour; and
·	spell components.

Although originally part of D&D as “flavour”, in v.3.x these limitations take on the nature of rules-related balancing factors.

Arcane spell failure from armour is probably only a minor balancing factor, but spell components are big limitations in practice.

Since casting of psionic spells is a purely mental affair, psionic spellcasters suffer no such limitations.  There are no “Silent Power” and “Still Power” feats in the XPH.  There’s no “Eschew Materials” feat for psionicists.  Psionic spellcasters can cast any spell while in an area of silence, underwater, while being grappled or pinned, or even while physically meeting the description of “helpless” (held or paralysed, but not sleeping or otherwise unconscious).  Under some conditions they may have to make a Concentration check, but so do SRD spellcasters; and every psion if guaranteed to put maximum ranks into Concentration, not least because of the benefits of having a psionic focus to expend.  Psionic spellcasters have no chance of spell failure because they’re deafened.  Psionic spellcasters don’t have to spend large sums of money on expensive gems, statues, engravings and other paraphernalia to cast their best or most useful spells, and certainly don’t have to lug all this fragile and valuable gear around.

Psionic spellcasters don’t require spellbooks, so can neither suffer from a loss of spells accessible, nor pay any money for maintenance of spells accessible.

Psionic spellcasters are obviously at an advantage here.

*Augmentation increases flexibility*

Many psionic powers have variable effects which are dependent upon the power points spent on them – a process called augmentation.  Let’s be clear – I consider this to be a good design characteristic.  However, it actually provides greater flexibility to psionic spellcasters than SRD spellcasters who are labouring under the yoke of fixed spell effects or “blessed” with spells which are “freely scalable”.

The benefit of augmentation is that it results in the need for fewer psionic spells to accomplish the same result as multiple SRD spells.  An example is astral construct, which is the equivalent of 9 summon monster or 9 summon nature’s ally spells; it’s effective spell level is entirely dependent upon the number of power points the psionic spellcaster wishes to expend in manifesting [= casting] it.  Similarly for psionic charm and psionic dominate, each of which replaces two SRD spells (charm/dominate person and charm/dominate monster).  Thus, the spells accessible degree of limitation for psionic spellcasters is relatively less of a limitation than the spells accessible degree of limitation for arcane SRD spellcasters.  What sorcerer wouldn’t give his right arm to know one spell which enables him to summon every monster from the nine tables of summon monster spells?  Even wizards, whose spells accessible degree of limitation is relatively less limiting than that under which the spontaneous spellcasters labour would benefit greatly from such flexibility – as in the situation you thought you would be negotiating with humanoids so prepared charm person, and then you find out you’re dealing with humanoid-looking outsiders and your charm monster languishes uselessly unprepared in your spellbook. To say nothing of the amount of money the wizard would save by not having to scribe multiple similar spells into his spellbook.

There is another benefit to augmentation which is not present in freely scalabe SRD spells – harm minimisation.  Psionicists can “pull their punches” by casting psionic spells at base power point cost; they are not “forced” into augmenting their spells by the game mechanics.  A fireball cast by a 10th-level wizard will always cause 10d6 points of damage; a psion can manifest an energy ball which only does 7d6 points of damage (and can reduce this to 7d6-7 damage if he chooses sonic damage).  Although I concede this is not a particularly significant unbalancing factor, there are times when a spellcaster will want to “pull his punches”, and the fact that psionic spellcasters can do so while SRD spellcasters can’t is simply another example of how the XPH has not done a good job at balancing out a spell point pool spellcasting system with a Vancian spellcasting system.

*The myth that psionic powers aren’t “freely scalable”*

The allegation that psionic spells are freely scalable is entirely an allegation about certain effects of the spells.  Where range and duration of psionic spells are variable,  then just like SRD spells, the range and duration of psionic spells scale freely with caster level.

Furthermore, there are numerous psionic powers whose effects are freely scalable – see, for example, energy adaptation and the various spell-equivalent psychoportation powers (psionic dimension door, psionic teleport etc.).  These are not isolated examples.

*The trouble with power points by spell level*

The number of power points a psionic spells costs to cast is equivalent to (2 x spell level) –1.  This is a linear arithmetic progression.  Thus, the difference between each spell level as a ratio of one spell level to the next reduces as the spell levels increase.  It is 3 times more expensive to cast a 2nd-level psionic spell as a 1st-level psionic spell, but only 1.13 times more expensive to cast a 9th-level psionic spell as an 8th-level psionic spell.

If one assumes that the pricing of psionic spells by level actually represents their relative mechanical value, then this system is balanced.  However, my personal opinion is that the higher the spell level we’re looking at, the more under-priced it becomes compared to spells of lower levels.  Is it true to say that a single 9th-level spell is worth less, mechanically speaking, than six 2nd-level spells?  My personal conception of the relative value of spells involves a geometric progression of values – each spell level is (for example) 2 times more valuable than the preceding spell level.  (1st-level = 1 power point, 2nd-level = 2, 3rd level = 4, 4th-level = 8, 5th-level = 16, etc.)

If in fact a 9th-level psionic spell is 2 times more mechanically valuable than an 8th-level psionic spell, which is in turn 2 times more mechanically valuable than a 7th-level psionic spell, on so on, then given that psionic spellcasters have a power point pool and no limit on spells per level, it is more efficient for psionic spellcasters to cast as many high level spells as possible.

Essentially, for psionic spellcasters, 9th-level spells are “crazy, crazy bargain-basement specials” compared to 1st-level spells.

Further, what SRD spellcaster wouldn’t want to have the flexibility to be able to burn, say, two 5th-level spell slots (= 18 power points) to cast a 9th-level and a 1st-level spell (= 18 power points)?  [Actually, this point is simply a re-iteration of one of the points in the discussion about degrees of flexibility above].

The trouble with a geometric progression if power point values for psionic spells is that it makes things like augmentation and power point costs for psionic feats mathematically complex and results in higher level spellcasters having so many power points that they can cast mid-level spells for eternity.

In practice, the simplest way to deal with this issue is to _cap the number of psionic spells of each level a psionic spellcaster can cast_.

*Comments on some psionic skills*

Autohypnosis: A handy skill which should be available as a class skill for non-psionic character classes, in particular, monks.  I see no reason why clerics and druids, who might very well be prone to enter long meditative trances, might not also have this skill as a class skill.

Nitpick: The XPH should at least have a sidebar which indicates how allegedly “psionic” class skills can be given as class skills to non-psionic classes.  This should not have to be left to a “house rule” and its omission is either lazy design or dictated by editorial requirements; I personally doubt the latter.

Concentration and the psionic focus:  Expenditure of the psionic focus “powers” many psionic feats and psionic spells.  An interesting mechanic which appears to have little actual purpose.  Psionic feats and spells can be made directly equivalent to SRD feats and spells, and the mechanical application of psionic feats can be made directly equivalent to the mechanical application of SRD feats.

But psionic focus is actually just a balancing game mechanic given flavour by sounding all “psionic”.  It purports to be a way of balancing psionic feats and some powers, so that they can’t be used every round and there is a chance you won’t be able to access them at all (because you can’t make your DC 20 Concentration check).  But the XPH provides for ways to circumvent this balance, for example, feats which enable the gaining of the focus a move action and give you a +4 on your Concentration check, and powers which enable you to regain your focus essentially for free (temporal acceleration).  Balancing of psionic feats can be accomplished without using this mechanic – for example, simply by the feat description limiting uses per day, uses per round, or “stacking” of feats.  So why create this concept at all?  It is elegant game design.  But then make sure you don’t undermine the balancing aspects of the mechanic.

*Comments on some metapsionic feats*

Sidebar on page 40: This sidebar says, “Trust us, we know what we’re doing”.  Given what I’ve said above, I’m personally not convinced…

Boost Construct: Augment Summoning for psionicists, without the useless feat prerequisite (Spell Focus (conjuration) is a useless feat because few conjuration spells have saving throws).  Put in a useless feat prerequisite to balance it.

Empower Power:  Increases power point expenditure by 2, which equals one spell level.  Of course, Empower Spell increases the spell level of the subject spell by 2 levels (which would be 4 power points).  But because of the free scaling nature of the variable numeric effects of SRD spells, Empowering is generally more attractive for SRD spellcasters.  But psionicists can cause more damage (if they want to spend the power points) because psionic spells have no damage caps; an Empowered fireball can only ever do a maximum of 10d6 x 1.5 points of damage (avg 52.5), whereas an Empowered energy ball can do (manifester level – 1) x (1d6+1) x 1.5 points of fire or cold damage (avg 128.25 spending 20 power points at 20th level).  [Direct damage psionic spells continue to be useful at high levels, whereas direct damage SRD spells decline rapidly in usefulness.]

Enlarge Power:  No power point cost for applying this feat to a psionic spell; c.f. Enlarge Spell.  The “balancing factor” is that the psionicist must expend his psionic focus, which means that the feat can only be used every second round (and the psionicist is only Concentrating every second round) or can only be used every round if the psionicist is not moving and has the Psionic Meditation feat (which all psions certainly will).

Power Penetration and Greater Power Penetration: Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration for psionic spellcasters, _but granting twice the bonuses_.  This is a double-benefit for psionic spellcasters, given psionics-magic transparency.  Psionic spellcasters are better at affecting spell-resistant creatures than SRD spellcasters.  _Why?_ (“But you have to expend your psionic focus, and that balances it!”  How about removing psionic focus from these feats completely and dropping their bonuses to +2 and +4 – that balances them).

Psionic Endowment and Greater Psionic Endowment:  Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus for psionic spellcasters, _but not limited to a “school” of psionic spells_.  “But you have to expend you psionic focus, and that balances it!”

Maximise Power:  See Empower Power above.  Generally, it is more efficient for SRD spellcasters to Maximise than psionic spellcasters, but psionic spellcasters can cause more damage if they want to spend to power points.

Overchannel and Talented:  This feat allows the psionic spellcaster to break the maximum power point limit, at the cost of some hit points.  This allows, for example, augmentation of powers which the psionic spellcaster could not normally augment, and the application of metapsionic feats to psionic spells which the spellcaster could not normally apply.  Talented reduces the hit point cost of overchanneling.  There is no SRD spellcaster equivalent.

Psionic Body:  Can you imagine the following feat: “Every metamagic or item creation feat you have you gain 2 hit points”.  For a wizard with d4 hit points per level, not an unattractive feat methinks.

Quicken Power:  This feat costs 6 power points (= 3 spell levels), as compared to 4 spell levels for Quicken Spell.  While Empower and Maximise Power feats will typically be applied to psionic spells which are not freely scalable, the reduction in power point cost over their SRD metamagic equivalents is fine.  But Quicken Power is useful for all psionic spells, so it doesn’t make sense to reduce its cost compared to Quicken Spell.  To balance this, drop the psionic focus requirement and increase the power point cost to 8.

Unconditional Power:  Obviously, a self-defence feat (“I’ll dimension door/teleport/dispel magic myself out of this mess”), with a high power point cost.  But no SRD spellcaster equivalent.


Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Vurt (Jun 8, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that 9 out of 10 conventional caster players would jump at the chance to spend a feat (or two) to be able to cast in all their spells in a grapple with just the grapple check to stop them. That they don't just have that option, but have it built in makes it an advantage for psions.




Just to quickly point out: Combat Casting and Skill Focus (Concentration), along with maxed out ranks in Concentration, pretty much makes casting while grappled a non-issue.  Now _pinned_, on the other hand...

Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 8, 2005)

It makes casting spells without somatic or material components much easier. What I'm talking about is being able to cast _ALL_ of a character's spells while grappled. That's what a psion can do. If my wizard could cast fireball, enervation, and lightning bolt while grappled, he wouldn't mind being grappled nearly as much. 



			
				Vurt said:
			
		

> Just to quickly point out: Combat Casting and Skill Focus (Concentration), along with maxed out ranks in Concentration, pretty much makes casting while grappled a non-issue.  Now _pinned_, on the other hand...
> 
> Cheers,
> Vurt


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 8, 2005)

Interesting post, Al'Kelhar.

I don't completely agree with your premise (that all the Complete Series is just a power grab), but I like the points you've laid [out].

One quick note, under pulling your punches:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.




So, a 10th-level Wizard may freely choose to cast Fireball at anywhere from 5th- (his minimum) to 10th-level (his maximum).

EDIT:

Laid *out*!!  I didn't mean to imply anything about Alk and his feat-friends!


----------



## Staffan (Jun 8, 2005)

Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> There is another benefit to augmentation which is not present in freely scalabe SRD spells – harm minimisation.  Psionicists can “pull their punches” by casting psionic spells at base power point cost; they are not “forced” into augmenting their spells by the game mechanics.  A fireball cast by a 10th-level wizard will always cause 10d6 points of damage; a psion can manifest an energy ball which only does 7d6 points of damage (and can reduce this to 7d6-7 damage if he chooses sonic damage).




From the SRD: [bq]You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.[/bq]
So the "harm minimization" isn't a feature for psions, except in the far corner case where your opponent is far enough away that you need to cast the spell at full power to reach him (since reducing caster level reduces both damage and range). But if your opposition is that far away, chances are that you don't need to worry about pulling your punches.


> My personal conception of the relative value of spells involves a geometric progression of values – each spell level is (for example) 2 times more valuable than the preceding spell level.  (1st-level = 1 power point, 2nd-level = 2, 3rd level = 4, 4th-level = 8, 5th-level = 16, etc.)



While I agree that levels don't represent a linear power increase, I don't think it's geometric either. I don't even think it's squared (your progression would put a 9th level spell at 512 times the power of a 1st level spell, squared would put it at 81 times). Not sure what, if anything, it is, but it's somewhere in between.



> Concentration and the psionic focus:  Expenditure of the psionic focus “powers” many psionic feats and psionic spells.  An interesting mechanic which appears to have little actual purpose.  Psionic feats and spells can be made directly equivalent to SRD feats and spells, and the mechanical application of psionic feats can be made directly equivalent to the mechanical application of SRD feats.



But doing so would make the psionic feats not just equivalent, it would make them identical. There is a value to the game in having multiple distinct ways of doing the same thing.


> Psionic Body:  Can you imagine the following feat: “Every metamagic or item creation feat you have you gain 2 hit points”.  For a wizard with d4 hit points per level, not an unattractive feat methinks.



Well, I *can* imagine a feat that gives you 1 hp per metamagic feat, in addition to letting yu use Int or Cha at first level to determine hp rather than Con, as well as giving a +1 insight bonus to AC. In fact, I don't have to imagine it, it's already written in the Player's Guide to Faerûn.


----------



## Vurt (Jun 8, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> It makes casting spells without somatic or material components much easier. What I'm talking about is being able to cast _ALL_ of a character's spells while grappled. That's what a psion can do. If my wizard could cast fireball, enervation, and lightning bolt while grappled, he wouldn't mind being grappled nearly as much.




Ah, see, my DM generally ignores that bit when one of his NPCs gets grappled by the party monk.  

Maybe a couple of silent spells prepped for just that contingency is what you need. A _lesser metamagic rod of silent spell _will only set the caster back 3000 gp, and is a good investment for the wizard who regularly finds himself in a grapple.  Eschew Materials could handle the material components issue.

And before anyone gripes, "But with Combat Casting and Skill Focus, that's 3-4 feats!", well, that's precisely the same argument that gets swept aside when discussing psionic types taking multiple good powers off of other class power lists via Expanded Knowledge.

Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## Nail (Jun 8, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Normally I wouldnt even be here during the week, but I am waiting for my experiment to stop running to I can compile some more data..mmm.. wave of the future.. spread sheets.. soo tired... ;/



Cool!

...well, not the "tired" part.  You a grad student, or working in industry?  I spent 6 years in a Lab in the University of Michigan.  I'm lucky I'm still married.

I'll get to yer questions...after I grade this stack of Chem. exams.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 8, 2005)

Vurt said:
			
		

> Ah, see, my DM generally ignores that bit when one of his NPCs gets grappled by the party monk.
> 
> Maybe a couple of silent spells prepped for just that contingency is what you need. A _lesser metamagic rod of silent spell _will only set the caster back 3000 gp, and is a good investment for the wizard who regularly finds himself in a grapple.  Eschew Materials could handle the material components issue.




Silent Spell only really helps if you get pinned.  What you need if you're grappled is _Still_ Spell... and there is no metamagic rod of Still Spell.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nail (Jun 8, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> I added some stuff in , can you answer the questions?



Okey-dokey.  But first lemme respond to this mistake:



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Overall it looks like you have spent 1 feat to increase the power of the summons and one more feat to give up other resources to do cast them faster (how much and how fast I have no idea).



I needed Spell focus(conjuration) for the Augment summoning feat.  Looks a heck of a lot more like 3 feats spent.

That's more than the psion needs to....and the psion can use Overchannel for other things.   And I'd love you to try to argue that the Spell focus(conjuration) is useful.   

Anyway, here's the Q&A about my Clr 15:



> *Domain: Summoning* ----->where is this from? what does it do?




The domain was originally from DorF, now updated to CD.  It boosts my caster level with those spells by +2.  This is a rather minor benefit, all things considered.  It also makes many (but not all) summon monster spells domain spells.  That's kinda nifty...see _Domain Sponteniety_.



> *Feat: Augment Summoning* -----> +4 str/+4 con, effectively a menu C choice always on for all summonings I guess so we can do this weird comparison of yours....




Not even close.  No way.  Uh-uh...ain't gonna buy it.  A +4 Str/+4 Con is equivalent to the Menu C choices??       Don't forget: with the _Boost Construct_ feat, the psion may pick 2 options from menu C.

And you and I both know there's nothing weird about comparing A-C and SM.  Stop "blowing smoke".  



> *Feat: Domain Spontaneity (Summoning)* -----> where is this from? what does it do? I am guessing it makes all of your domain slots useable for any domain spells spontaneously, this really isnt helping the summon part of the build much at all, it helps keep the character more versitile in other areas rather than make summoning stronger...




That is to say: it allows him to do something the psion gets to do for free.  Yep, it allows me to be closer to the psion's power level.

The feat is in CD.



> *Feat: Divine Summoner (house rule, spend turn attempts to decrease casting time)* so, 1 turn attempt to go to full round, 2 to standard action, that sort of thing? since it is a houserule you can post the whole feat



As it was a house-rule, I thought posting it wasn't appropriate, so I just described it generally.  But yes: you got the idea.



> *PrC: Shining Summoner (house rule, some "flavor" powers, like all summoned creatures shine like Light spell, extra turning feat, etc) *Does it actually increase the power of summons at all? light is not an improvement, generally I would consider it the opposite. Extra turning isnt a direct improvement and since I dont know anything about the other feat I have no idea what it will help with



The light power was a flavor issue, as my Clr is a priest of the Sun.  ...and light is actually a kinda quirky tactical advantage.  After all, these SM are often meat-shields.

The Extra Turning gives me more turns for use with the Divine Summoner (house rule) feat.




			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Plus, in the end, it could come down to trying to force something that your character is very weak in to begin with into something viable.



If you still think that, there's a problem.  Look through some of the pure SM threads, if yer interested.

The Summon Monster/Summon Natures Ally tactic is good. (Ask my players when I DM!)  Even without the feats and PrC.  Even at higher levels.

But compare it to A-C....even without the Boost Construct and Overchannel.

The conclusion of a comparison (with feats and specialized or without feats and not specialized) is obvious; A-C is over-powered as written.  Add in the fact that psions can do twice to three times as many high level A-C in a day than a regular spell caster, and you've got a whole truck-load of wacked.


----------



## Vurt (Jun 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Silent Spell only really helps if you get pinned.  What you need if you're grappled is _Still_ Spell... and there is no metamagic rod of Still Spell.




Thanks for the correction, Hyp.  Can you tell my spellcasters rarely take metamagic feats? *GRIN*

Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 9, 2005)

Well, for a sorcerer or wizard it can be. In the core rules, this is only over a rather limited range, but glitterdust and web are probably the premiere second level offensive spells and aren't ever completely outmoded. (I know my LG character still uses both at level 16 and I see a fair number of quickened glitterdusts in 6th level slots). Cloudkill can be good in the right circumstances and SF: Conjuration is useful for that too.

So under the core rules, I'd say it's marginally useful on the whole. Not worth a feat, but not utterly useless either.

Now, if you include non-core materials, however, SF: Conjuration becomes more worthwhile. I believe the MotP's Reality Maelstrom spell is a conjuration and SF: Conjuration is quite useful for the various energy orb spells from Complete Arcane (OK, so orb of fire is probably the most useful one there, since it's got the most powerful affect, but some of the others--blindness or entanglement--are useful too) as well as arc of lightning and vitriolic sphere. Considering that all of those spells will scale all the way to level 20 in usefulness (for instance, a maximized and empowered fire orb will usually deal more damage to a single target than a meteor swarm as well as having a chance to daze the target and reality maelstrom was evidently fingered as being overpowered, even for Sepulchrave's epic level game), I'd say there's a definite case for taking SF: Conjuration even without going for Augment Summoning. It may not be a compelling case for most characters, but I can imagine characters that would want it.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> That's more than the psion needs to....and the psion can use Overchannel for other things.   And I'd love you to try to argue that the Spell focus(conjuration) is useful.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 9, 2005)

It's more like 3-4 feats, two of which are unnecessary at high levels, and two of which severely impede casting if used regularly. (Apply both to all your spells and it's like losing four levels). The advantage of the psion in this case is not just that he has options that take a sorcerer or wizard a feat, but that he has those options without the increased cost that sorcerers and wizards must pay to use them.

It's probably unfair to group all exclusive list powers into the psion comparison too, but I think it's quite reasonable to think that many psions will take advantage of the Expanded Knowledge option to learn at least one or two powers. I seem to recall that scions' psychic warrior builds in the PsyWar vs. Fighter thread did so. And, I know that all of the psions I've seen played have also done so. (Usually, it's non-shapers grabbing astral construct, but I've seen a seer grab energy missile). And most psions will have access to at least one good power from their exclusive list even without spending any feats, so it's not very realistic to leave discipline powers and powers from other classes entirely out of the equation either.



			
				Vurt said:
			
		

> And before anyone gripes, "But with Combat Casting and Skill Focus, that's 3-4 feats!", well, that's precisely the same argument that gets swept aside when discussing psionic types taking multiple good powers off of other class power lists via Expanded Knowledge.


----------



## Vurt (Jun 9, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> It's more like 3-4 feats, two of which are unnecessary at high levels, and two of which severely impede casting if used regularly. (Apply both to all your spells and it's like losing four levels). The advantage of the psion in this case is not just that he has options that take a sorcerer or wizard a feat, but that he has those options without the increased cost that sorcerers and wizards must pay to use them.




At higher levels, Combat Casting and Skill Focus allow you to shift your skill rank priorities to other skills. This is not a big deal for a wizard, obviously, who gets mondo skill ranks from his Int score, but it is arguably more useful for a cleric or sorc, whose skill points tend to lag. It's not a big thing, to be sure, and at high levels, exchanging feats for skill points seems to be a losing proposition, but arguably half of the problem is _getting_ the character to survive up to those high levels in the first place!

The key to using Still Spell, I would think, is to use it with low-level spells that are just handy in a tight pinch (or grope), like grease, ray of enfeeblement, enlarge person, and the poor wizard's lighting bolt (aka shocking grasp). That way you can save your higher level slots for the good stuff. That, and both Still and Silent only boost the slot up by one each. Keeping a _lesser metamagic rod of silent spell_ handy for the pins, though, can save you a feat.

And while yes, the psion can do this without any feat investment, Combat Casting, Skill Focus, Still Spell and Eschew Materials are useful outside of grappling as well. That said, grappling the spellcaster is a tactic that is great if used sparingly and it works, but isn't guaranteed to do so. (The easiest way to defeat an unwelcome grappler is to have a friendly rogue nearby just itching for something to be denied its Dex bonus. Sure, your caster may be frustrated for a round or two, but in my experience, allowing the rogue to shine by saving the wizard's bacon can make for some truly memorable moments. And if nobody wants to play a rogue, maybe see if you can pick one up via the Leadership feat if you can.)

As for Expanded Knowledge, well if it's a problem in your game, the easiest solution is to remove the feat or allow it to be taken only once. In my games I've seen it come up exactly one time, with the party Telepath (detective type power and feat selection) picking up sensitivity to psychic impressions at 5th level instead of the ubiquitous energy missile. So really, YMMV. You're the one in the best position to know what your campaign is like and what is appropriate to it.  By all means, if something is upsetting the delicate balance of your game, put a stop to it.

Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Jun 9, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> One quick note, under pulling your punches:... (corrects Al'Kelhar)




Well I'll be darned.  Y'learn someting new every day.  Thanks Patryn and Staffan.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Nail (Jun 9, 2005)

Vurt said:
			
		

> As for Expanded Knowledge, well if it's a problem in your game, the easiest solution is to remove the feat or allow it to be taken only once. In my games I've seen it come up exactly one time, with the party Telepath (detective type power and feat selection) picking up sensitivity to psychic impressions at 5th level instead of the ubiquitous energy missile. So really, YMMV. You're the one in the best position to know what your campaign is like and what is appropriate to it.  By all means, if something is upsetting the delicate balance of your game, put a stop to it.



True.  No arguement here.

I'd just rather be able to trust the rule-set of XPH, as I do for Core.  Psionics _could_ be an elegant magic system, smoothing over many of the glaring problems with the default magic system.  

And, quite clearly: YMMV.


----------



## Nail (Jun 9, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Now, if you include non-core materials, however, SF: Conjuration becomes more worthwhile.



Sure.  The "orb" spells do make it more worthwhile....for Wiz/Sor.  It's still mostly wasted with Clr/Drd.  Ah-well.


----------



## Vurt (Jun 9, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> I'd just rather be able to trust the rule-set of XPH, as I do for Core.  Psionics _could_ be an elegant magic system, smoothing over many of the glaring problems with the default magic system.




I can only agree to that!

That said, one of my players and I share DM'ing responsibilities, and both our games are high-powered. We're using gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana along with the XPH, and I think the combination acts well to smooth over power inequalities in the psionic/magic spectrum. 

For example, last session's encounter had the party (avg level 7) pitted against a gestalt troll Barbarian 5/Shaper 5 and his misc orc underlings. (EL 10) The most effective character in the fight was the Paladin/Cleric, who simply kept smiting. Second most effective had to be the Warmage/Rogue, who when it became clear the troll was resistant to fire, effortlessly switched to lesser acid orbs. The least effective turned out to be the Monk/Psywar (who couldn't hit the thing), and the Urban Ranger/Telepath. After the troll successfully saved against two fully augmented mind thrusts from the Telepath, the character was forced to spend the rest of the encounter trying to dispel the thing's buffs (specified energy adaption, concealing amorpha, force shield).

On the other hand, I think the DM was psychologically scarred when the Telepath almost single-handedly neutered his random encounter with 4 dire lions. One succumbed to crisis of breath, and two more were psionic charmed for 7 days. (There were no more random encounters that week, nor did anything accost them while the party was sleeping.  )

My point is simply that it isn't terribly hard to challenge the psionically inclined characters, or to provide encounters that allow the non-psionic types to shine. Maybe psionics are overpowered, but in my games they haven't been overwhelmingly so. (And hence why Your Milage May Vary.) Traditional magic types still see plenty of use and viability, both as PC class options and as opponents. I personally feel that debating the issue here is somewhat masturbatory, in the sense that we can't go back in time and revise our copies of the XPH. 

What we can do is freely share our experiences, good and bad, and our solutions to problems that have commonly arisen in our own games. If we can get past the heated antagonism and misgivings this topic seems to regularly invoke, all our games can benefit from it. Even if it could be proven once and for all that the psion was overpowered, we would still be left with what to do about it. I simply recommend we skip the middle step.

Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## Nail (Jun 9, 2005)

Vurt said:
			
		

> ....What we can do is freely share our experiences, good and bad, and our solutions to problems that have commonly arisen in our own games.



Agreed.

In my current game, I DM along with 2 to 3 others.  We've agreed to accept Core + splatbooks + XPH, with the understanding that some things might be houseruled at some later time.  For the most part, that's never happened: we've got extremely few houserules.

Regarding the Psion(shaper): I was the DM for levels 12 thru 15.  I'm a pretty tough DM => 17 deaths over 8 gaming sessions.  In that time period, every single character died at least once.....except the psion.  

Read that over gain, 'cause it bears repeating. 

Now, gaming style, as well as raw power, often heavily affect things like this.  That's a given.  To make sure I wasn't just letting the psion off easy, I specifically tailored many of the later encounters to put him at "exceptional risk".  Mooks with the Mageslayer feat chain.  Severe limits on teleportation and scrying.  Monsters immune to mind-affecting magic.  Creatures that could teleport as a purely mental action.   BBEGs that singled out the psion.  Energy resistance, spell/power resistance, Spell turning, etc.

The psion came close (like during the combat with the CR 20 guardian demon Kerzit - they were APL 13, BTW), but was always able to both significantly contribute to the fight's outcome and keep himself alive.  Precious few times did he come _close_ to running out of pp.  Never (yep: never) did he actually run out of pp.

So....you see where I'm coming from.  

Psionic powers/feats that caused the most "trouble": (note the quotes!)
 Mass Ectoplasmic Coccoon
Psychic Reformation
"Crystal Storm" (some Dragon Mag power, no SR, 7d4 Con dam when overchanneled!)
Overchannel feat
Psionic body feat
Astral Construct (overchanneled and Boosted)
Dimensional slide (as a move action)
the huge duration of many of the defensive powers
etc.

I'm sure there are more.

.....Let me put all of that stuff above aside for a moment to say this: We are having fun.  I enjoy playing with the player of the Psion(shaper).  We're unlikely to house-rule this stuff away.


----------



## Vurt (Jun 10, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> The psion came close (like during the combat with the CR 20 guardian demon Kerzit - they were APL 13, BTW), but was always able to both significantly contribute to the fight's outcome and keep himself alive.  Precious few times did he come _close_ to running out of pp.  Never (yep: never) did he actually run out of pp.
> 
> So....you see where I'm coming from.




Oh definitely.  A well-built psion is very survivable.  This can be a good thing, though.  It means the campaign doesn't have to end if one of them can get back to town and true res the rest after a particularly nasty encounter.

How much does the character contribute outside of combat?  For instance, the power _adapt body_ is personal, so what does the party do when they have to go to some underwater venue to perform or retrieve something?  What happens when the king of the realm decides to limit adventuring in his domain to his personal friends, which don't happen to include the party members?  I find combats a fun challenge, but sometimes I like throwing things at them that don't have any obvious solutions just to see what they can come up with.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Psionic powers/feats that caused the most "trouble": (note the quotes!)
> 
> 
> Mass Ectoplasmic Coccoon
> ...





I understand that you're unwilling to remove these powers completely, but are you amenable to trying out minor variations on them?  For instance, if _psychic reformation_ is getting used more often than you'd like, how about adding a caveat to the power that when reforming, the power itself must also be reformed away?  Then the player could always pick it up every level if he desires, but it limits its use to only extreme circumstances, and even then only once per level.


Perhaps you could introduce a small percentage chance that an overchanneled astral construct gets enough added juice to gain sentience and free will, overcoming the mental shackles of its summoner.  "I'm alive!"  (Think Dr. Frankenstein's monster.)  Perhaps it demands compensation, added responsibility, maybe even a pet or two for its service.  ("Can I have your familiar?")  Or perhaps something goes wrong and it goes randomly berzerk.  This could be especially entertaining if this happens at a critical juncture and sides with the party's opponents.  ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend!")


If everyone is having fun, though, perhaps its best to just go with the flow, accept that the psion's player "has won", and just keep throwing more and more entertaining and unbelievable encounters for the party to overcome.  Ultimately so long as everyone is enjoying the game, everyone wins.


Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 10, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> The conclusion of a comparison (with feats and specialized or without feats and not specialized) is obvious; A-C is over-powered as written. Add in the fact that psions can do twice to three times as many high level A-C in a day than a regular spell caster, and you've got a whole truck-load of wacked.



 While I realize that this issue has been brought up _ad nauseum,_ I'm still a little hazy on your reasoning here (or in disagreement):

Going under the assumption that somehow we've proven A-C more powerful than SM beyond a shadow of a doubt, how does this make A-C inherently overpowered?

Experiencewise:  While I confess I tend to play in vastly greater numbers of low-level games, I've yet to see ANY summoner (or constructor or what have you), with the exception of high-level arcanists using Gate, dominate combat/play to a degree where it was in any sense detracting from the niche or enjoyment of other players.

Edit: Hrm.  Actually in retrospect, though that last part still stands it's probably because my acquaintances have been reluctant to use Planar Ally/Binding.  I've experienced a little bit of grotesquerie there.


----------



## Nail (Jun 10, 2005)

@shadowdweller:

Different groups really do put different emphasis' on different sets of powers.  If my "arguement" has any fundamental flaw, it's there.  Some groups simply don't use SM, or have never seen 2 specialists (SM and A-C) compete.  It's hard to judge what you haven't yourself witnessed.

In KarinsDad's game, for example, it seems as if practically _every_ full round casting time spell gets disrupted.  In my games, it's a rare occurance.  (Shrugs)

To go to your core question: "Assume A-C is more powerful than SM ; how does this make A-C inherently overpowered?"

I would answer: Two similar abilities should be similar in power.  SM is balanced wrt other spells and class abilities within the core rules.  A-C is far more powerful than SM, yet fills the same role.  This is a problem, and detracts from fun.


----------



## Nail (Jun 10, 2005)

Vurt said:
			
		

> If everyone is having fun, though, perhaps its best to just go with the flow, accept that the psion's player "has won", and just keep throwing more and more entertaining and unbelievable encounters for the party to overcome.



That's our plan.

The poor Wiz 15, though!  When I DMed, I threw at the party all this stuff tailored for the Psion...and, unfortunately, they were really good a beating up Wizards too.   Ouch!!!


----------



## Scion (Jun 11, 2005)

Well, I had this nice post almost done, and then the power went out. Very 
annoying ;/ I'll try to redo it but if it comes off a bit brief that would 
be the reason why.

I dont have a ton of time, I'll go over the highlights across a few posts.
Hopefully no one will mind me posting a few in a row 

(gah, this post turned out way too long  )



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Here is the first part of my examination of the game
> mechanics in the XPH.  The second part will look at psionic powers
> specifically, if I get the time.
> My essential conclusion: Psionic spellcasting is unbalanced as against spellcasting by divine and arcane spellcasters as presented in the core rules.  The XPH is a power up D&D supplement, much like the "Complete" series.




I would like to see you do a similar analysis of arcane and of divine in two seperate runs. If you were to do them in the same way you did this one then your conclusions on each that they are unbalanced as compared to each of the others. 

Even if one could prove that most of the time manifestors are stronger/better/more potent than arcane casters they are still below the power level of the divine casters. I do find it interesting that being below the power level of one or more of the core guys is written off as unimportant while at the same time anything that they might be good at is blown way out of proportion.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> D&D v.3.x incorporates some fundamental design philosophies which need to be borne in mind when assessing the integrity of any new rules or design options.  The primary design philosophy is simple – D&D is a tactical wargame.  You can LARP it up all you want, but at the end of the day, the RAW only support a tactical wargame.  Everything else is a necessary byproduct of individuals’ playing styles.  What flows from this conclusion is that the RAW _must assume_ that players will optimise their choices within the ruleset to gain maximum advantage for their characters.
> 
> Furthermore, the RAW _must not assume_ that there will be any balance to this optimisation by individuals’ (DMs’ or players’) playing style.




Now, going along with this, I personally hate having to always play to the lowest common denomenator. It is neither necissary nor required. There are other ways around certain problems after all, many systems do this. But, this is neither here nor there.

Coming at this from another way, if we go by what is easiest to min/max and to what degree we could look to the character optimization boards. The number of builds for caster types and noncaster types are far above and beyond the numbers for psionic builds. Generally there are a few things that can be worked hard to get obscene in the psionics system, but there are far, far more for the other caster types. So, by this yard stick, psioncs would be in need of some beefing up, not nerfing (or, the other caster types would need some nerfing, to be brought down to the appropriate level).



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Within this context, let’s examine a number of features of the Expanded Psionics Handbook (XPH) against the SRD.
> 
> *Power points vs Vancian spellcasting*
> 
> The XPH introduces a system of spellcasting which departs from the system presented in the SRD.  Let’s not pretend that psionics is not just another spellcasting system.




I was following along until the last line there. We dont have to pretend that psionics is just another spellcasting system because it 'is' just another spellcasting system. It works in the same way, it does the samethings. Really, it has spell (power) levels, it is effected by SR, it deals with limitations of duration in the same fashion, dispel magic works, it doesnt function in an antimagic field, and a number of other things. 

Transparency across the board. 

Maybe in 2nd edition you could've made a case, but in 3rd? Not a chance.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> In the following discussion, I will talk about “degrees of freedom” and “degrees of limitation” in spellcasting.  Essentially, I’m talking about the flexibility inherent in a particular form of spellcasting.
> 
> There are four degrees of limitation and freedom:
> ·	*spells accessible:* what spells a character can potentially draw upon;
> ...




Interesting. Are all of these rated equally? How do you rate these by degrees that they go to. After all, taking it to an extreme, if one can only choose between 3 spells from each level, only gets one of these three, can only cast it once per day, but they all have durations of 24 hours and are very impressive. This could easily be balanced by the system at large but going by the above it would be completely impossible to tell.

Maybe if you had a rating system from 1 to 5 or so. of course, at that point there is a problem of which value to pick. The conclusions drawn would likewise be biased. However, it would at least give a slightly better starting place than this.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Vancian spellcasting for divine classes is characterised by three degrees of limitation: spells prepared, spells per day, and spells per level; and one degree of freedom: spells accessible.
> 
> Vancian spellcasting for wizards is characterised by four degrees of limitation: spells accessible, spells prepared, spells per day, and spells per level.  While it is true that a wizard can theoretically have all sorcerer/wizard spells in their spellbooks, as a practical matter this is impossible.  Hence, in practice, spells accessible is a degree of limitation for wizards, although relatively less of a limitation than that faced by spontaneous spellcasters.
> 
> ...




It sounds like you are saying that the wizard and sorcerer suck. But, as I mentioned above, there are just so many variables that are left out that it is impossible to tell.

In other words, one could draw any number of different interpretations from this and they would all be equally valid.

Even just by going directly with what I think you are trying to say basically you put the sorc way above the wizard in power level and possibly even above the divine caster although it is fuzzy.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Psionic spellcasting is characterised by two degrees of limitation: spells accessible and spells per day; and two degrees of freedom: spells prepared and spells per level.




Spells per level? The sorc should get this one as well if the psion gets it. Especially considering that the sorc is the master of metamagics, far and above the psion.

yet another thing saying that the sorc is actually way ahead in this game 



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Firstly, it should be noted that psionic spellcasting has more degrees of freedom (and consequently fewer degrees of limitation) than the spellcasting options presented in the SRD.




Actually, I dont feel this is true. You toss away the wizards best advantage as a trifle (given any situation and time to prepare he will have an answer, massive selection) and give beanies to the psions side without giving the same beanie to the sorc when he deserves it. To my counting that puts the sorc and psion on decently even ground and the wizard only slightly behind.

Going even further, if we look at a specialist wizard instead (psions are specialists, so comparing to a specialist wizard certainly shouldnt be out of line) the wizard has nearly as many spells to cast in a day as the sorc, and way above the psion. Another point of contention.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> The spells per level degree of freedom is often manifested in the observation that “psions can use their highest level powers [i.e. cast their highest level spells] until their power points run out”.  Since all power points [= spell points] form one universal resource from which to cast spells (the power point pool), psionic spellcasters are not bound to limit their spellcasting to fixed numbers of spells of certain levels.
> 
> Although the SRD spellcasters have the flexibility to use a spell slot of a given level for a spell of a lower level, SRD spellcasters cannot combine spell slots of lower levels to cast higher level spells.




Of course, if we add up the pp value of each spell the casters have they are pretty far ahead of the psion. This means that the psion has more flexibility but less staying power. This is a tradeoff that many like to sweep under the rug.

Many lower level spells and powers retain their usefulness later on. The casters are mostly free to act on these, they dont really count much against their overall power. Each and every power manifested cuts into the 'advantage' that others always point to. In addition, going full out like that isnt all that much more effective than what the other casters can do generally, then the psions have to be out of the game for longer.

So, tradeoffs. The potential to do more highers, but doing no lowers. Or, lots of lowers but no real highers. Overall, much less staying power in trade for the versitility.

Remember that ranking system I said above? 



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Secondly, psionic spellcasters are more easily able to reduce the impact of the spells accessible degree of limitation than SRD spellcasters because psionic spells often duplicate the effects of multiple SRD spells through augmentation.




This is true, it is another aspect of what I said above. Although, there is also the point of free augmentation for some spells that powers dont get.

There are also a very large number of spells vs the number of psionic powers, although this is a difficult point to call 'balancing'. Although, it does mean that there are a large number of unique effects that the psions simply cannot do.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> *A comparison of spellcasting by sorcerers, wizards and psions*
> 
> If one converts sorcerers and wizard spells per day into spell points, and compares them to the spell points possessed by a psion, at all but the lowest class levels:
> ·	a sorcerer has more spell points than a psion; and
> ·	a psion has more spell points than a wizard.




More of these items without scales. But, I just so happened to have made one 

(0's count as half, specialist in parenthesis, psion in brackets, sorc last)
1st 2.5 (3) [2] {5.5}
2nd 4 (5) [6] {7}
3rd 7 (11) [11] {8}
4th 11 (15) [17] {18}
5th 16 (25) [25] {21}
6th 24 (32) [35] {39}
7th 32 (48) [46] {47}
8th 44 (60) [58] {73}
9th 56 (81) [72] {85}
10th 72 (97) [88] {119}
11th 88 (124) [106] {135}
12th 108 (144) [126] {179}
13th 128 (177) [147] {199}
14th 152 (201) [170] {249}
15th 176 (240) [195] {273}
16th 204 (268) [221] {331}
17th 232 (313) [250] {359}
18th 264 (345) [280] {425}
19th 294 (375) [311] {457}
20th 326 (407) [343] {491}

now, I dont know how to make one of those nifty table things. If anyone can let me know I'll try it.

Now, the generalist mage is always on the bottom, but generally not by much.

The bonus points run the gambit varying by level and ability modifier for which class gets the most. 

Overall, the generalist wizard is on the bottom, then the psion, then the specialist wizard, then the sorc on the top.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> But then consider the following:
> ·	a psion knows more spells per level (with the exception of 0-2nd level spells at higher class levels) than a sorcerer; and
> ·	a psion acquires his highest level spells one class level earlier than a sorcerer (and the same level as a wizard).




As the psion has to spend first level slots to get the equivalents of the 0th level spells I think this is definately a consideration, especially early on. The psion must also spend a full pp for them instead of the 1/2 as they were rated above.

I have no clue at all why the sorc has delayed progression. Going by the numbers I just gave it looks like giving the sorc a 1 instead of a dash at the appropriate odd levels would make the progression in pp equivalncies work out perfectly across the board. Sounds like a sorc problem, not a psion problem.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Then there are other aspects to the psion and psionic spellcasting which cannot be overlooked:
> ·	a psion gains bonus feats like a wizard;
> ·	a psion can cast any spell at a higher caster level than he has class levels or character levels, through the Overchannel feat, an ability which is barred to arcane spellcasters.  The negative effects of Overchannel can be mitigated with another feat, Talented.




The first is a given. The only negative comparison this could be taken as is vs the sorc. Again, sorc problem, not a psion problem. Same with the sorc being cha based which could be considered to be a detriment. Sorc problem, not a psion problem. Unless of course you are taking away bonus feats from the wizard and domains from the cleric.

The second is spending feats for some special purpose. yes, there are some psionic feats for which there is no magic equivalent, the same is true for the reverse. Given the number of suppliments out we can get a huge ratio of feats that the arcane can use that the psions cant. Which would mean that your point actually goes for saying the psion is weaker than the others.

Also, for the last bit, talented only works with powers of level 3 and less (that would be: 1st, 2nd and 3rd as there are no 0th level powers) and requires expending focus. I notice from the rest of your analysis you ignore this factor. It is a 'huge' factor, so huge that ignoring it is enough to throw our your entire analysis without even bothering to read the rest. Focus is a huge balancing factor.

I'll go over this more later, but I'll give a brief example. Say your caster wants to have a spell focused, spell penetrating, and empowered spell. The psion, pre-epic, can 'never' do this. Even after spending a bunch of feats the best that he can do is two foci at once, and if he wants to do that more than once per combat it takes rounds of extra time (even with spending yet another feat to reduce the time it takes to regain focus).

But still, yes, the psion can use overchannel and sometimes ignore the damage by expending focus, and then could spend even more pp out of their limited supply to make some power a little more impressive. That is one of their perks. If you would like me to list out a few dozen feats that the psion cant use that the other casters can I will.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> *Psionicists are not affected by physical limitations*
> 
> SRD arcane spellcasters suffer considerable physical limitations on their spellcasting abilities.  These fall into two classes:
> ·	arcane failure chance from armour; and
> ...




Arcane spell failure is stupid. But even failing that, divine casters are not effected. Failing that not all arcane casters are effected all of the time. Failing that, not all spells have somatic components. Even failing all of that even a wizard can cast spells with somatic components in armor if he chooses his equipment properly.

Definately a minor balancing point, and one that shouldnt even be there in the first place in my opinion.

The psion isnt exactly proficient in armor anyway, so still suffers from skill check penalties, which is very prohibiting.

Material components almost never come into play. Most are ignored completely with a spell pouch (incredibly cheap, having multiple doesnt even effect your total wealth) and even with the expensive ones I would much rather have a focus/component instead of having to pay exp. 



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Since casting of psionic spells is a purely mental affair, psionic spellcasters suffer no such limitations.  There are no “Silent Power” and “Still Power” feats in the XPH.  There’s no “Eschew Materials” feat for psionicists.




True, the psions dont have V, S, or M, they have a completely different set of limitations. Like a ringing in peoples ears or being covered in slime. So, the part about, 'no such limitations' is effectively false, nice try though.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Psionic spellcasters don’t require spellbooks, so can neither suffer from a loss of spells accessible, nor pay any money for maintenance of spells accessible.




Wizards have a huge selection of spells available as compared with the psion. Wizards need a book to look over, from which they can fill up slots anytime during the day, and the psion has a much more limited selection.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Psionic spellcasters are obviously at an advantage here.



In some ways yes, in other ways no. Unfortunately, the game works with whole numbers so feats that would be '+0.1' must be rounded up to 1. I am hopeing for fixes sometime in the future 



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> *Augmentation increases flexibility*
> 
> Many psionic powers have variable effects which are dependent upon the power points spent on them – a process called augmentation.  Let’s be clear – I consider this to be a good design characteristic.  However, it actually provides greater flexibility to psionic spellcasters than SRD spellcasters who are labouring under the yoke of fixed spell effects or “blessed” with spells which are “freely scalable”.




Augmentation is a very nice addition. I feel it adds a lot of flavor to the class.

But yes, the casters get free scaling in many spells that the psion must pay for directly.

However, I disagree with the 'greater flexibility' comment. It definately adds a lot, but there are still so many things in magic that work over such a wide area of effect along with the always scaling that it simply means that in specific situations certain powers have a greater flexibility.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> The benefit of augmentation is that it results in the need for fewer psionic spells to accomplish the same result as multiple SRD spells.  An example is astral construct, which is the equivalent of 9 summon monster or 9 summon nature’s ally spells; it’s effective spell level is entirely dependent upon the number of power points the psionic spellcaster wishes to expend in manifesting [= casting] it.  Similarly for psionic charm and psionic dominate, each of which replaces two SRD spells (charm/dominate person and charm/dominate monster).  Thus, the spells accessible degree of limitation for psionic spellcasters is relatively less of a limitation than the spells accessible degree of limitation for arcane SRD spellcasters.  What sorcerer wouldn’t give his right arm to know one spell which enables him to summon every monster from the nine tables of summon monster spells?
> 
> Even wizards, whose spells accessible degree of limitation is relatively less limiting than that under which the spontaneous spellcasters labour would benefit greatly from such flexibility – as in the situation you thought you would be negotiating with humanoids so prepared charm person, and then you find out you’re dealing with humanoid-looking outsiders and your charm monster languishes uselessly unprepared in your spellbook. To say nothing of the amount of money the wizard would save by not having to scribe multiple similar spells into his spellbook.




Lets look at this in some steps.

First of all, about the psionic dominate, it is telepath only and it starts off weaker than the spell version. Astral construct and summon monster have very different options, you can get lots of things from summoning that you cant dream of with the construct, and you can get more guys at once, and astral construct is shaper only.

Talking about 'degrees of freedom' though there are many good powers only on certain discipline lists. If you want to even get a handfull of them there go all of those vaunted feats, putting the psion farther behind the wizard.

Secondly, you are again ignoring the benefit of the spellbook, along with ignoring the wizards powerful ability to leave slots open to get the perfect spell later.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> There is another benefit to augmentation which is not present in freely scalabe SRD spells – harm minimisation.  Psionicists can “pull their punches” by casting psionic spells at base power point cost; they are not “forced” into augmenting their spells by the game mechanics.  A fireball cast by a 10th-level wizard will always cause 10d6 points of damage; a psion can manifest an energy ball which only does 7d6 points of damage (and can reduce this to 7d6-7 damage if he chooses sonic damage).  Although I concede this is not a particularly significant unbalancing factor, there are times when a spellcaster will want to “pull his punches”, and the fact that psionic spellcasters can do so while SRD spellcasters can’t is simply another example of how the XPH has not done a good job at balancing out a spell point pool spellcasting system with a Vancian spellcasting system.




We are apparently not playing the same game, casters can freely choose a number all the way down to the minimum needed to cast the spell 



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> *The myth that psionic powers aren’t “freely scalable”*
> 
> The allegation that psionic spells are freely scalable is entirely an allegation about certain effects of the spells.  Where range and duration of psionic spells are variable,  then just like SRD spells, the range and duration of psionic spells scale freely with caster level.
> 
> Furthermore, there are numerous psionic powers whose effects are freely scalable – see, for example, energy adaptation and the various spell-equivalent psychoportation powers (psionic dimension door, psionic teleport etc.).  These are not isolated examples.




yep, some powers do scale. Not all do however. There are several powers whos augmentation is so horrible as to make them effectively worthless also (disentegrate anyone?), this cuts into other areas of ability.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> *The trouble with power points by spell level*
> 
> The number of power points a psionic spells costs to cast is equivalent to (2 x spell level) –1.  This is a linear arithmetic progression.  Thus, the difference between each spell level as a ratio of one spell level to the next reduces as the spell levels increase.  It is 3 times more expensive to cast a 2nd-level psionic spell as a 1st-level psionic spell, but only 1.13 times more expensive to cast a 9th-level psionic spell as an 8th-level psionic spell.
> 
> ...




Eh, I feel that the linear progression is fine for the difference in power levels. Higher multipliers are definately out of the question.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> If in fact a 9th-level psionic spell is 2 times more mechanically valuable than an 8th-level psionic spell




But then, it isnt, so you dont have to worry about this.

If you want to judge by dice of damage then each new level is only slightly above the last. If you want to judge by other requirements feel free to list them.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Essentially, for psionic spellcasters, 9th-level spells are “crazy, crazy bargain-basement specials” compared to 1st-level spells.




Do you mean like sorcs and their scorching rays and magic missiles which blow the psions low level stuff out of the water on a cost to cost balance? 

 Again, sounds like the psion is behind..lol


Each level of spell/power is definately not necissarily double the power of the last. In fact, I would say it is very, very far from it. Definately an increase, but quadratic? No way. Linear is as good an approximation as anything else that doesnt go up too fast.

Still though, spending more ability at once should do slightly more effective things. Strangely enough, that is exactly what happens.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> *Comments on some psionic skills*
> 
> Autohypnosis: A handy skill which should be available as a class skill for non-psionic character classes, in particular, monks.  I see no reason why clerics and druids, who might very well be prone to enter long meditative trances, might not also have this skill as a class skill.




Cool, so give it to them. They can already take it crossclassed anyway. 

Dont make up problems that dont even exist to begin with. Of course, I feel that every class should have spot and listen on their class lists. That doesnt mean that it happens though. 



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Concentration and the psionic focus:  Expenditure of the psionic focus “powers” many psionic feats and psionic spells.  An interesting mechanic which appears to have little actual purpose.  Psionic feats and spells can be made directly equivalent to SRD feats and spells, and the mechanical application of psionic feats can be made directly equivalent to the mechanical application of SRD feats.




Focus is a major drawback to being a psionic character. It limits pretty much everything that they can do in one way or another. Sure, the feats could be made equivalent, but it is nice for some extra flavor.

My guess would be that it was also put in to help against some of the detractors saying psionics were too powerful. I guess it failed, at least in some cases.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> But psionic focus is actually just a balancing game mechanic given flavour by sounding all “psionic”.  It purports to be a way of balancing psionic feats and some powers, so that they can’t be used every round and there is a chance you won’t be able to access them at all (because you can’t make your DC 20 Concentration check).  But the XPH provides for ways to circumvent this balance, for example, feats which enable the gaining of the focus a move action and give you a +4 on your Concentration check, and powers which enable you to regain your focus essentially for free (temporal acceleration).  Balancing of psionic feats can be accomplished without using this mechanic – for example, simply by the feat description limiting uses per day, uses per round, or “stacking” of feats.  So why create this concept at all?  It is elegant game design.  But then make sure you don’t undermine the balancing aspects of the mechanic.




I dont even know where to start here. Apparently everyone has an unlimited number of feats, pp, and time. Must be nice, I've never played in a game like that however.

If you want to be able to use your psionic feats more than once in a given battle (aside from spending a full round doing nothing else but trying to gain focus) you must spend another feat, you must max out concentration all of the time, you must spend time regaining focus.

Limited uses per day is a horrible balancing mechanic (see the spontaneous metamagic feats and other such problems). I dont know what you mean by, 'limited uses per round', nor 'stacking'.

the concept works pretty well in practice, although it has some issues. Such as the feat that makes it a move action should be dropped into concentration checks. Too many feats are required to make useing focus something that any psion can do. Major balancing point, too major in fact.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> *Comments on some metapsionic feats*
> 
> Sidebar on page 40: This sidebar says, “Trust us, we know what we’re doing”.  Given what I’ve said above, I’m personally not convinced…




Given what you have said above I think you should trust in them much more than you trust in your analysis.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Boost Construct: Augment Summoning for psionicists, without the useless feat prerequisite (Spell Focus (conjuration) is a useless feat because few conjuration spells have saving throws).  Put in a useless feat prerequisite to balance it.




Why? Why not just remove the requirement from augment summoning?



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Empower Power:  Increases power point expenditure by 2, which equals one spell level.  Of course, Empower Spell increases the spell level of the subject spell by 2 levels (which would be 4 power points).  But because of the free scaling nature of the variable numeric effects of SRD spells, Empowering is generally more attractive for SRD spellcasters.  But psionicists can cause more damage (if they want to spend the power points) because psionic spells have no damage caps; an Empowered fireball can only ever do a maximum of 10d6 x 1.5 points of damage (avg 52.5), whereas an Empowered energy ball can do (manifester level – 1) x (1d6+1) x 1.5 points of fire or cold damage (avg 128.25 spending 20 power points at 20th level).  [Direct damage psionic spells continue to be useful at high levels, whereas direct damage SRD spells decline rapidly in usefulness.]




So are you saying that the psions are getting the shaft or that they are even?

Empower power needs expenditure of focus (remember focus?) and in order to make it useful the psion has to dump a lot more pp into a power than the spellcaster does for a spell.

Of course, the caster has the metamagic rods and can dump out a few empowered ones for pretty cheap (9k for a lesser rod, turn those 10d6 fireballs into 15d6, still only a third level spell).

Direct damage psionic powers do tend to still be useful later on, moreso than the spells, but the psion pays for it. Also, it isnt because of the damage (which is compareable), it is only because the psion can change elements. Without that they would be just as bad at it as the other casters.

Psions are better blasters, nothing wrong with that, at all. (and by 'better' I mean 'actually viable')



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Enlarge Power:  No power point cost for applying this feat to a psionic spell; c.f. Enlarge Spell.  The “balancing factor” is that the psionicist must expend his psionic focus, which means that the feat can only be used every second round (and the psionicist is only Concentrating every second round) or can only be used every round if the psionicist is not moving and has the Psionic Meditation feat (which all psions certainly will).




Every psion will get it? Wow, cutting into those bonus feats even further. Along with maybe provoking aoos, needing to make the check, and having to wait until level 5 to get it.

Still though, are you saying that they are fairly even or that one of them is ahead of the other?



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Power Penetration and Greater Power Penetration: Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration for psionic spellcasters, _but granting twice the bonuses_.  This is a double-benefit for psionic spellcasters, given psionics-magic transparency.  Psionic spellcasters are better at affecting spell-resistant creatures than SRD spellcasters.  _Why?_ (“But you have to expend your psionic focus, and that balances it!”  How about removing psionic focus from these feats completely and dropping their bonuses to +2 and +4 – that balances them).




They wanted a different effect ::shrugs::. Personally, I would much rather have it be +2 without focus. As is this is a much, much weaker version for psionics than casters, even with the doubling.

Since the caster version is always on you dont have to worry about whether or not the creature has SR, you always get it. For the psion they have to worry and guess, if they go with the extra then they cant do something else. Plus, it requires the psion to get psychic meditation and most likely also psicrystal and psicrystal containment just so that they can actually get use out of their feats.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Overchannel and Talented:  This feat allows the psionic spellcaster to break the maximum power point limit, at the cost of some hit points.  This allows, for example, augmentation of powers which the psionic spellcaster could not normally augment, and the application of metapsionic feats to psionic spells which the spellcaster could not normally apply.  Talented reduces the hit point cost of overchanneling.  There is no SRD spellcaster equivalent.




I went over this above. Basically it is a nice combo that takes a lot of resources to pull off and has some restrictions in order to be better at what the psion does.

However, there are so many different feats that the psion cant use that the caster can that the last arguement is completely meaningless.

(actually, practiced spellcaster is similar in some ways..psionics dont have an equivalent that I have seen, although one could port it directly through transperency, but psions get less out of the feat than casters)



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Psionic Body:  Can you imagine the following feat: “Every metamagic or item creation feat you have you gain 2 hit points”.  For a wizard with d4 hit points per level, not an unattractive feat methinks.




Please, improved toughness is 'way' better than this feat. In addition, it can be argued that 'dodge' is a better feat than improved toughness (ignoring 1 out of every 20 attacks vs an opponent every combat), so that shows how low on the pecking order this feat is.

The main benefit is that at early levels the psion can have more surviveability through the sacrifice, and that is it.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Unconditional Power:  Obviously, a self-defence feat (“I’ll dimension door/teleport/dispel magic myself out of this mess”), with a high power point cost.  But no SRD spellcaster equivalent.




Talk about a, 'almost always worthless but can come in handy in a pinch' feat. 'Huge' cost and very conditional. 

Anyway though, in conclusion I think your conclusion is fairly suspect. I think that if you did a similar analysis of the arcane magic and of divine magic they would all have the same final analysis. Each can do things the others cant, each has their own specialties, and each can be said to be unbalanced when important factors are brushed away.


----------



## Scion (Jun 11, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Okey-dokey.  But first lemme respond to this mistake:
> 
> I needed Spell focus(conjuration) for the Augment summoning feat.  Looks a heck of a lot more like 3 feats spent.




Since I was counting only things that benefited the summoner for summoning it wasnt a mistake. But, I can see how you would misunderstand my comment.

So, he spent a feat on 'augmented summoning'. That is one feat.

The next feat was to turn turning attempts into faster summons (this is an incredibly powerful ability, as I said before I think this right here puts your guys above the power level of the constructs hands down).

So, that is two feats. One of which is equivalent to a C ability for all of your summons and the other is incredibly powerful right off of the bat. Very powerful stuff here.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> That's more than the psion needs to....and the psion can use Overchannel for other things.   And I'd love you to try to argue that the Spell focus(conjuration) is useful.




Sounds like you are assuming that the psion spends 3 feats at least: Overchannel, talented, and boost construct.

To use talented the psion must expend focus, so in order to do this more than once per combat he also needs psychic meditation and a whole pile of ranks in concentration.

The psion gets a tougher guy with his feats (if he spends extra pp in addition) and your guy comes out extra fast (assuming you dump a turning attempt or two into it).

Losing pp faster means the psion is out of the game faster, losing turning attempts doesnt really mean much to the cleric. Especially this cleric who apparently gets a ton of turning attempts from all over..lol



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Anyway, here's the Q&A about my Clr 15:




Ok



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> The domain was originally from DorF, now updated to CD.  It boosts my caster level with those spells by +2.  This is a rather minor benefit, all things considered.  It also makes many (but not all) summon monster spells domain spells.  That's kinda nifty...see _Domain Sponteniety_.




+2 caster level means it is harder to dispel and lasts longer, for every summon you pop out, without further cost. If it is a 'minor benefit' then you apparently never played low level, never try to use summons outside of combat, never have people use dispels, and/or never try to use noncombatant summons (when the summon goes away spell effects do too, keeping him around longer means they last longer).

Also, it gives you more chances to use summon monster each day.

The cleric has a similar conversion to spell points as the sorc when domains are counted in. This means that the cleric can bring many, many more summons into play than the psion can. If the psion is useing overchannel often then this number jumps up greatly again.




			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Not even close.  No way.  Uh-uh...ain't gonna buy it.  A +4 Str/+4 Con is equivalent to the Menu C choices??       Don't forget: with the _Boost Construct_ feat, the psion may pick 2 options from menu C.
> 
> And you and I both know there's nothing weird about comparing A-C and SM.  Stop "blowing smoke".




I am not the one blowing smoke here, but a lot of other people are. Jumping back and forth and picking up on discussions with others and then making up strawmen.. but it happens all of the time when psionics come up. People are so unwilling to try anything and so ready to pick up on anything negative that it is nearly impossible to get anything in edge wise.

But that is a distraction, lets go over this.

Muscle is a +4 to strength menu B ability. One can trade in a menu C ability for 2 menu B abilities. Augmented summoning gives +4 str and +4 con all of the time to all summons. This sounds like the equivalent to a menu C ability to me. Easily twice as good as the menu B ability.

Also, the boost construct only gives a menu C choice for constructs of level 7 and up, for anyone less it gives a lesser choice.

If you disagree that augmented summoning isnt equivalent to a menu C choice feel free to point out why, I think my reasoning above works very well for the conversion you want to do.

But then, I still see no point at all in trying to compare them purely in situations where the AC's were meant to excel, just like earlier when I made the example of cone of cold doing much less fire damage than fireball and therefor cone of cold was horribly underpowered. The comparison is more extreme, but along exactly the same lines.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> That is to say: it allows him to do something the psion gets to do for free.  Yep, it allows me to be closer to the psion's power level.
> 
> The feat is in CD.




It allows the cleric to blow the psion out of the water for amount of uses of summon monster. He can have whatever of his incredibly large list already known and subsitute them out at will.

This is 'huge' for the cleric. Your cleric started at about the same power level and you blasted the psion away so long ago there isnt even a competition anymore.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> As it was a house-rule, I thought posting it wasn't appropriate, so I just described it generally.  But yes: you got the idea.




Not appropriate to post something you are useing as a basis and that is not protected by any laws? I am confused.

I will assume for now that it is 1 turn attempt to make it a standard action. Even if nothing else was done on any other level I think this right here would pass up the power level of the AC immediately.

It is just an incredibly large advantage.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> After all, these SM are often meat-shields.




I think this is your biggest problem right here.

If you step up to a specialist in his zone of interest and he has given up resources to be better at it then a nonspecialist, half gimped character should lose 100% of the time.

You have gone through pains to make your guy a specialist, so that gets rid of the nonspecialist part.

Still though, with what you have described your guy is a powerhouse that the psion can only compete with in a narrow band. Given that, he had better still win, considering. I dont see how he would though except in very specific situations.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> If you still think that, there's a problem.  Look through some of the pure SM threads, if yer interested.




If you do not think that, then there is a problem.

Your guy starts off with only about half of the list to begin with. That is a pretty big hinderance. It really cuts into its versitility. Hence, your character starts off very, very bad at useing it but you are forcing it to be viable.

You have done a good job of that, in fact over the course of short combats your guy should do better nearly 100% of the time because of a single feat you have, even if it was the only thing you used.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> The Summon Monster/Summon Natures Ally tactic is good. (Ask my players when I DM!)  Even without the feats and PrC.  Even at higher levels.




It is 'a' tactic and it can be useful when used properly, but meat shield it does not do very well. It has a lot of versitility and a ton of options which the AC has no hope to ever get.

Without any feats or prc's helping it out it tends to be a nitch type of spell.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> But compare it to A-C....even without the Boost Construct and Overchannel.
> 
> The conclusion of a comparison (with feats and specialized or without feats and not specialized) is obvious; A-C is over-powered as written.




You have not shown this in any way, shape, or form.

It is not obvious, in fact there is no reason to even assume it is true with what is given so far in this thread.

Even if we could prove that in 100% of the situations AC is 'always' better and even 'always much better' it *still* would not prove that AC is overpowered.





			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Add in the fact that psions can do twice to three times as many high level A-C in a day than a regular spell caster, and you've got a whole truck-load of wacked.




Again, the cleric has similar amounts of spells to the sorcerer, who is 'way' ahead of the psion in that area.

Even after your prc and feats and everything else (since you apparently have given up 0 caster levels, and really nothing at all) if your summons came out to be stronger than the AC even most of the time I would think that the AC was underpowered, and greatly so.

Your cleric starts off with a handicap and puts resources into making an option that is not very good as a meat shield and tries to do something that both he and the spell are not good at.

Vs a specialist who starts off with something that is designed to be a good meatshield and puts resources into it.

If the cleric ever came close without giving up major, major things then AC would need a boost in power.

Now, I know you wont agree with this. I am not sure how you can expect your cleric to be as good as the psion in this case. The cleric is better in nearly every other way than the psion and the cleric starts off gimped, and yet you are so surprised by the psion being better that it bothers you. Very confusing.


----------



## Scion (Jun 11, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> I'd just rather be able to trust the rule-set of XPH, as I do for Core.  Psionics _could_ be an elegant magic system, smoothing over many of the glaring problems with the default magic system.




Trusting the core is your first problem  It has a lot of issues that have been known for some time but they just ignore or put bandaid patches on.

Between spells and powers the powers tend to be much more balanced. How many broken spells are there? how many broken powers?

If you go to the character optimization boards they have massive casting builds which destroy worlds, there are virtually none based on psionics.

psionics is a very nicely done system. In my eyes it is the most balanced form of magic to date.


----------



## Scion (Jun 11, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Regarding the Psion(shaper): I was the DM for levels 12 thru 15.  I'm a pretty tough DM => 17 deaths over 8 gaming sessions.  In that time period, every single character died at least once.....except the psion.
> 
> Read that over gain, 'cause it bears repeating.




Just as much as repeating that it means little to nothing. If you had a commoner who was 5 levels below you walking around with your group everywhere and he was the only one to have survived every encounter that had happened so far that does not make the commoner overpowered, or even a good class.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Now, gaming style, as well as raw power, often heavily affect things like this.  That's a given.  To make sure I wasn't just letting the psion off easy, I specifically tailored many of the later encounters to put him at "exceptional risk".  Mooks with the Mageslayer feat chain.  Severe limits on teleportation and scrying.  Monsters immune to mind-affecting magic.  Creatures that could teleport as a purely mental action.   BBEGs that singled out the psion.  Energy resistance, spell/power resistance, Spell turning, etc.




Most of this isnt especially useful against summoners except for the mageslayer feat, and that is what the rest of the party is for. So I am unsure how this is specifically targetting him.

Now, it'd be a great thing against psions in general, but certain builds have different things they care about, same as with any class.

Of course, if a BBEG specifically targets any one player over all others then that guy is in trouble. It doesnt matter who he is. Most buffs are so short in duration it is laughable, he is a d4 hd character anyway, and he is spending all of his time trying to hide away from guys to get off his 1 round manifesting time powers.

So, since all of these would've been just as (in)effective against any other summoner character what does this prove?

Oh, except the cleric, who has a much higher surviveability so being targetted wouldnt have mattered as much.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> The psion came close (like during the combat with the CR 20 guardian demon Kerzit - they were APL 13, BTW), but was always able to both significantly contribute to the fight's outcome and keep himself alive.  Precious few times did he come _close_ to running out of pp.  Never (yep: never) did he actually run out of pp.




At this point, if it was a full day of manifesting and other threats, I 'would' accuse the guy of cheating.

Unless of course we have very different meanings of 'contribute significantly'.

Of course, if he is spending half of his time protecting himself then he will have higher surviveability than the guy who is constantly trying to be offensive to the enemies.

This psion of yours sounds way outside of the bubble. He has 'tons' of hp, 'tons' of pp, and somehow is never really significantly challenged except in very rare situations. He also always has time to put up buffs (which in 3.5 tend to be so short they are mostly worthless except when surprising an enemy).

Now, I must be missing something from your gaming experience. A few bits of info that have not been mentioned. Otherwise, we are very, very far into the 'highly improbably' side of the equation.

Just because something can happen one in a billion times does not make it a problem per se, merely a probabilitical anomaly.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Psionic powers/feats that caused the most "trouble": (note the quotes!)






Noted. Now, what does it mean?



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> [*] Mass Ectoplasmic Coccoon




SR + Save + makes the target immune to almost everything and is easy for a teamate to break them out of it, but cuts off their actions.

I guess the problem was a no SR, failed save, no buddies bad guy who was carried back to town (or kept in it long enough for everyone to buff up)?

It is basically the psionic version of forcecage, with a few differences.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> [*]Psychic Reformation




Eh, it does what it does very well, so long as you use it properly and dont let people make up rules for it you'll be fine. (all changes must be legal for the level you are reforming, it costs a bunch of exp, etc)



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> [*]"Crystal Storm" (some Dragon Mag power, no SR, 7d4 Con dam when overchanneled!)




Dragon magazine has a good habit of producing all powerful things. This has zero to do with psionics. They could've easily made it a magic spell and people would just say,'wow, another broken spell', but if they make it psionic people start thinking psionics are the problem.. weird..




			
				Nail said:
			
		

> [*]Dimensional slide (as a move action)




You dont like people useing a move action + pp to take a move action? I am confused.

It can help to get over terrain you might have otherwise needed to make some sort of skill check for, but it is a psychic warrior only power which takes a bunch of pp and takes you only a very short distance. What 'trouble' could it have caused?



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> [*]the huge duration of many of the defensive powers




Umm.. ok.. we are reading different books again.

Most spells and powers have durations which are too short to be useful to begin with. 1min/level or less is basically only good in surprise situations where you have surprise, otherwise taking a round out of combat to put it up just isnt worth it (or it is insanely powerful of course).

The psionic powers have the same problem that the spells do. Some have a good duration, most do not.


----------



## Scion (Jun 11, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Two similar abilities should be similar in power.  SM is balanced wrt other spells and class abilities within the core rules.  A-C is far more powerful than SM, yet fills the same role.  This is a problem, and detracts from fun.




Body adjustment and cure spells are 'similar', but they are very different in power. Would you like to make the first stronger or the second weaker?

SM is not necissarily balanced with other spells and classes in the core rules, at least not for what you are trying to do with it.

AC is not necissarily more powerful than SM, they do different things. They have 'some' similarities, but no where near all (much like the body adjustment vs cure spells).

I think the problem is trying to fit a square peg into the round hole and then calling one of the two broken because it doesnt work.


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> SM is not necissarily balanced with other spells and classes in the core rules....



And here (at last!  After paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs!) is the core of our disagreement.  There's no way I can convince you 'bout A-C if you think SM is wussy!

We should play together sometime (sans Psionics, of course).  You'd see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Scion (Jun 13, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> And here (at last!  After paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs!) is the core of our disagreement.  There's no way I can convince you 'bout A-C if you think SM is wussy!
> 
> We should play together sometime (sans Psionics, of course).  You'd see what I'm talking about.




You are claiming that it is balanced but you have proven no such thing. One could just as easily say that it isnt.

if you want to claim that SM is a good baseline then I would like you to show it somehow. If you want to assume it is true then I can just as easily assume that it is not true, or assume that AC is automatically fine as is.

Like I have said from the beggining of that discussion, you are not laying the ground work properly. Even if we compare AC and SM right down the line and find out every place where one is better than the other to everyones satisfaction very little is proven. Nothing with balance is proven, which is the problem, why bother doing it if it will do nothing useful?

so, prove that SM is (un)balanced. If you cant even do that, then how could you do anything like that for AC? How can we use SM as a comparison point if you cannot do so?


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Jun 14, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> You are claiming that it is balanced but you have proven no such thing. One could just as easily say that it isnt.
> ...
> How can we use SM as a comparison point if you cannot do so?




The point is that the core rules are the baseline against which everything else is compared.  This is not a dispute about whether the core rules are wimpy or certain "character concepts" or "builds" are "non-viable" in the core rules.  I think what a number of people are stating is that _taking the core rules as the base line of what character classes, skills, feats and powers are available with which to kill things and take their stuff, psionics is over-powered_.  Whether the game designers realise, post-design, that the core rules leave arcane spellcasters under-powered is not the what is at issue here.  There are many feats and spells, in particular, in supplements like Complete Arcane and Complete Divine which are also over-powered _in comparison to the core rules_.  This and XPH indicate, to my mind, that the game designers may well be thinking that spellcasters are under-powered in the core rules.

I think what you're saying is that psionics is an elegant magic system which is balanced against the challenges to be faced by D&D characters (killing things and taking their stuff) - and if that means that arcane spellcasters are too weak to face those challenges, then that's a problem for the arcane spellcasters, not psions and psionics generally.

That's an entirely valid viewpoint.  But it does seem to fly in the face of the opinion of many that the arcane spellcasters, particularly the wizard, are amongst the most powerful of the core character classes.  And in any analysis of whether _any_ extra rules are balanced or not, the core character classes, skills, feats and power must be used as a baseline.

I agree that my analysis of the XPH that you critique is done at a very superficial level.  That's a consequence of limits on my time and overall interest in the subject.  Nevertheless, I still consider it demonstrates that, as a magic system, psionics as presented in the XPH is more powerful than the spellcasting systems presented in the core rules.  The caution that I advocate is that psionics cannot be simply "plonked down" into a campaign otherwise predicated on core rules without some adjustments, in particular, to the arcane magic system.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 14, 2005)

Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> The point is that the core rules are the baseline against which everything else is compared.  This is not a dispute about whether the core rules are wimpy or certain "character concepts" or "builds" are "non-viable" in the core rules.  I think what a number of people are stating is that _taking the core rules as the base line of what character classes, skills, feats and powers are available with which to kill things and take their stuff, psionics is over-powered_.




Sadly, even when you compare some Core Rules item to *other* Core Rules things, some of the Core Rules are underpowered.

People can't just dogmatically say "the Core Rules are the baseline" when the Core Rules aren't necessarily consisntent *with themselves*.


----------



## green slime (Jun 14, 2005)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Sadly, even when you compare some Core Rules item to *other* Core Rules things, some of the Core Rules are underpowered.
> 
> People can't just dogmatically say "the Core Rules are the baseline" when the Core Rules aren't necessarily consisntent *with themselves*.




The core rules are baseline. This does not mean that certain aspects of those rules are not weaker than others. But it is a base for which discussion can be had around.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 14, 2005)

green slime said:
			
		

> The core rules are baseline. This does not mean that certain aspects of those rules are not weaker than others. But it is a base for which discussion can be had around.




Except, if you can't necessarily compare one build in Core with another build in Core how can you consider that a 'baseline'?


----------



## Scion (Jun 14, 2005)

Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> The point is that the core rules are the baseline against which everything else is compared.  This is not a dispute about whether the core rules are wimpy or certain "character concepts" or "builds" are "non-viable" in the core rules.  I think what a number of people are stating is that taking the core rules as the base line of what character classes, skills, feats and powers are available with which to kill things and take their stuff, psionics is over-powered.




As others have said, the core is not a good baseline to itself, so which point do you compare to?

Each class tends to have its own strengths and weaknesses. Some are shared with other classes, some are unique to itself.

Now, we could go through everything in each book where any class is stronger than the others and say that because it is stronger than all of the others in that field it is overpowered, but it would be pointless. Each class 'should' have some strengths over the others, somewhere that it calls home and where it is best qualified to do some job.

Taking this a step further, say we were to compare something that one class is bad at to something another class is good at. Then we see a 'huge' disparity in power level for that particular item. Does this mean the one that is good at it is broken? No, it might be, but there is no useful comparison going on here. Even if there was a magical 'baseline' with which to compare just because something is above it to some degree 'also' does not make it broken or overpowered.

Some have glossed over any comparisons I have made to the cleric because the cleric is 'overpowered'. This seems rather odd considering what you have just said Al'Kehlar, so now this means that the core is the baseline, but that baseline shifts depending on who you talk to and what they allow and what they call 'overpowered'. Further skewing the line of what is acceptable or not.

Still though, the point keeps coming back to the same thing: Just because one class is better at something than another does not make it overpowered directly.

It may very well be that some things are overpowered, but it has not been shown. A few people have said, 'in my experience it is overpowered', and a few others have said, 'in my experience it is not overpowered'. The same could be said for nearly every class (possibly every class if you discount some/all of the npc classes, although I have heard of people calling the expert overpowered in 3.0), does that mean that every class is overpowered/underpowered?


Nail would like to do a comparison useing SM and AC to show that AC is overpowered. I explained why I felt this was not going to be easy and might wind up being a waste of time, but then asked him to explain why he thought SM was balanced. Just because it is in the core does not make it so, nor should there be an automatic assumption of such. Plus, if he ever did give a thorough analysis which showed why he thought it was then it would provide a decent springboard from which to start a real comparison with AC. Two birds, one stone, good trade right?


Whatever this mystical baseline is seems to change from person to person. If we are going to use the core as a baseline then what do we compare with? Nothing can be stronger than it? nothing weaker? nothing far out there where it hasnt tread yet? Nothing that might break some of the rules it set up in intersting ways? This game is run by people, it can be much more open ended than just the core.

Besides, the core only has a few things in it, there are multitudes of items out there which would be balanced just fine but that the core hasnt even dreamed of.

Just because something doesnt have a corallary in the core does not make it broken. Just because something might be stronger than what is in the core does not make it overpowered.


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> As others have said, the core is not a good baseline to itself, so which point do you compare to?




Nice redirect.  

Although the Core RAW is not perfect (nor expected to be so), it is still the fundamental yardstick with which we compare other things.

As I've said before, if we can't agree on a basis for comparsion, there's nothing more to discuss.  That's too bad.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Just because something might be stronger than what is in the core does not make it overpowered.



...but it's a very strong indicator.  

Just because I hear a train coming, and I happen to be standing on train tracks, does not necessarily mean I will shortly be hit by a train.

Still, the good advice would be to step off the tracks and look around, eh?


----------



## Scion (Jun 15, 2005)

it isnt a 'strong indicator', it might be said to be an indicator, but definately not a strong one. Even 'indicator' is a pretty poor descriptor as it labels something in a potentially harmful way without giving it a chance. Guilty before proven innocent, harsh.

Still, you havent answered even the most fundamental question about this comparison you want to do, there is no ground to stand on.

I keep on asking you to fill in this baseline you want to use, but you either can not or will not. Dropping the, 'but its core' card means less than nothing to me, the core is far from perfect.

So, you want this comparison, first you have to show how and why SM is balanced. (the sayings, 'it is balanced in my game' is likewise not helpful. After all, AC is balanced in every game I have been in, so if my experience is not good enough for you then we need some other criteria  )


----------



## Someone (Jun 15, 2005)

Besides, if we´re going to compare, I think we should compare Astral Construct with Summon Nature´s ally, not Summon Monster. AC is the shapers shtick, and SNA is the druids schtick (and wildshaping, and... but let´s not derail it). Druids get most of the elementals, the best heavy hitters, one spell level earlier than clerics or wizards; this also applies to the animals in the list (being non-templated, they have a lower CR, but the same damage potential). They can use Animal Growth to buff the summoned animals to stupid levels. They (and clerics) have an alternative to Summon spells with giant vermin, that scales without using higher spell slots, and has the advantage of a casting time of 1 standard action.


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> So, you want this comparison, first you have to show how and why SM is balanced.



And to show SM is balanced, to what shall I compare it, O arbiter of comparisons?


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2005)

Someone said:
			
		

> Besides, if we´re going to compare, I think we should compare Astral Construct with Summon Nature´s ally, not Summon Monster.



I afraid Scion will disagree.  He'll say either a) SNA is not the Druid's schtick, or b) SNA does different things than A-C.


----------



## Scion (Jun 15, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> And to show SM is balanced, to what shall I compare it, O arbiter of comparisons?




You keep on shifting what you are going for, but I keep trying to tell you the same thing anyway. I'll try it in a slightly different way this time.

Apparently you feel that AC is unbalanced in some way. Given this you have said that, 'compared to SM AC is unabalanced in some way'. I have said, 'that isnt helpful, each has a different emphasis and they do very different things' To which you replied something like, 'well, I want to compare them anyway'. So then I mentioned that you would need a few things in order to make this a useful comparison at all.

First of all, you will need to show that SM is balanced. You believe it is apparently, so prove it in some way. Without this we wont even know what we are comparing to. Any conclusions reached will be worse than useless because they will be misleading.

Secondly, we will need some ground work. Over which range are we talking? All encounters? only certain types? Anything from the various manuals? Etc etc.

It may turn out that SM is good in situations A, B, and C while AC is good in situations X, Y, Z. But then SM can be used in situations X, Y, and Z to some degree that is below the AC's ability, but AC has essentially zero impact on A, B, and C. Who wins then?

Also, you have put up your cleric guy who beats the psion out of the water in very nearly every field possible, and yet it is a problem for some reason that one of the few things the psion can still maybe do better in certain circumstances.. so much of a problem that you want him beat with the nerf stick apparently. Given just how good the cleric is in so many other areas I would not blame the psion to be wanting a major buff 'and' to beat the cleric guy with the nerf stick.

Yet here we are. You want a comparison and when I ask you to lay out the groundwork and some of your reasonings for the side of comparison you should feel more comfortable with there is no information coming. I am not sure if you are working on it or if it is just something etheral that is floating around with the golden sign of, 'it is core, therefor it must be balanced'

Eh, you are the one who is gung-ho about this comparison, I just want it to be done correctly if it is going to be done for some reason.

So please, stop jumping around on subjects and ignoring the question. If you want to do this comparison then the groundwork needs to be laid out. If it isnt then what could you possibly hope for?


----------



## Scion (Jun 15, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> I afraid Scion will disagree.  He'll say either a) SNA is not the Druid's schtick, or b) SNA does different things than A-C.




Are you actually talking on some other thread that I am not allowed to be a part of?

Please do not put words in my mouth. Also, please stick to the point you apparently want to go over. If you cannot do the basic stuff how can there be any higher order objectives?


----------



## Someone (Jun 15, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> And to show SM is balanced, to what shall I compare it, O arbiter of comparisons?




I don´t know. Maybe with Summon Nature´s Ally, or maybe not. Anyway, with all the variables and combinations of feats, spells and powers, the comparison is difficult. What´s more helpful to the party, a boosted overchanneled astral construct VI, or 1d4+1 augmented animal growthed dire wolves? You can pull both tricks at character level 9.

What if the designers really wanted to make the constructs more powerful than the summoned monsters, for whatever reason? Maybe they said "After all, clerics and wizards do a lot of things other than summoning monsters, and have other options like planar binding and planar ally to bring help. And if we want to make shapers attractive, we should make good astral constructs". It´s a valid reason, though I don´t know how much sound. In the end it comes to playtesting: you and others say tha the psions in your games are very powerful, more than other characters. I´ve read others saying they are ok, and I have some experience about them on my own, having played a couple mid-level NPC psions. The idea I´ve polished in this time is that they are very good, certainly better than sorcerers and a match to wizards, and that there are some powers and combos of feats and powers that may need to be house ruled. I at least, have waited to form an opinion after the playtesting, instead of dismissing all the book as unbalanced just after reading it.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 16, 2005)

Seriously,  you can't really compare SNA to SM without SM being shown up as weak, so how can you use SM as a 'yardstick' for other summoning abilities like AC?

If you say SM is the 'baseline', again, *right in core* there's something that blows it out of the water.


----------



## Nail (Jun 16, 2005)

So, let's compare A-C to SNA then.

.....wow, has this thread gotten far afield.


----------



## green slime (Jun 16, 2005)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Except, if you can't necessarily compare one build in Core with another build in Core how can you consider that a 'baseline'?




Except you can. People do it all the time. You may argue over the method of comparisson, and disagree with the conclusions that people draw. Which is reflects more of the values that people place on abilities, (which is subjective), than the abilities themselves. Nonetheless, core is the baseline. If you dismiss the core rules as a baseline for comparisson, then you may as well start comparing Mango Juice to Fighters. 

Mango Juice is often more yellow. And sweeter to drink, unless you are a Vampire or "Brainsssss" zombie.


----------



## Scion (Jun 16, 2005)

green slime said:
			
		

> Nonetheless, core is the baseline. If you dismiss the core rules as a baseline for comparisson, then you may as well start comparing Mango Juice to Fighters.




Ok then, compared with druids and clerics, psions need a 'major' boost.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 17, 2005)

Just as long as you're admitting that Astral Constructs are tougher than Summoned Monsters...

Actually, Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally top out at the same place (elder elementals at level 9) so the high level comparison doesn't get any more favorable to core rules than the low level comparison, but the lower level SNAs are unquestionably better than the lower level Summon Monsters. (The only thing that Summon Monster has going for it in the comparison is that protection from evil or magic circle vs. evil doesn't shut it down completely--that and maybe the dretch if you can tell it what to do and get it to do what you want).



			
				Someone said:
			
		

> I don´t know. Maybe with Summon Nature´s Ally, or maybe not. Anyway, with all the variables and combinations of feats, spells and powers, the comparison is difficult. What´s more helpful to the party, a boosted overchanneled astral construct VI, or 1d4+1 augmented animal growthed dire wolves? You can pull both tricks at character level 9.
> 
> What if the designers really wanted to make the constructs more powerful than the summoned monsters, for whatever reason?


----------



## Scion (Jun 17, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Astral Constructs are tougher than Summoned Monsters




tougher != more useful however, nor more powerful overall


----------



## A Man In Black (Jun 17, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Just as long as you're admitting that Astral Constructs are tougher than Summoned Monsters...
> 
> Actually, Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally top out at the same place (elder elementals at level 9) so the high level comparison doesn't get any more favorable to core rules than the low level comparison, but the lower level SNAs are unquestionably better than the lower level Summon Monsters. (The only thing that Summon Monster has going for it in the comparison is that protection from evil or magic circle vs. evil doesn't shut it down completely--that and maybe the dretch if you can tell it what to do and get it to do what you want).




For what it's worth, non-druid summoners are going to have access to Planar Binding, Planar Ally, and/or Gate in addition to SNA/SM, whereas a psion has only AC to work with.


Something related to the validity-of-core-comparisons argument, is the greater tendency of clerics/druids/sorcerers/wizards to benefit from non-core material (new spells are more common than new powers, new metamagic feats are more common than new metapsi feats, there are more feats to enhance summons than ACs, etc.) a value worth considering? Many, many games use more than core, even if it's just a setting book with some crunchy bits.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 17, 2005)

Been away a bit.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> I would answer: Two similar abilities should be similar in power. SM is balanced wrt other spells and class abilities within the core rules. A-C is far more powerful than SM, yet fills the same role. This is a problem, and detracts from fun.




FWIW, my sympathy.  It DOES suck to be outperformed in one's supposed area of expertise.  However...

It is a mistake, IMHO, to expect that any two different classes are equally capable in any specific field.  Classes have different strengths, different areas of expertise.  And this does not make them unbalanced _provided there are counter-balancing strengths_: In fact it makes things more interesting because it makes them DIFFERENT.

Some core examples, for sake of comparison:

Item:  Arcane casters give up quite a bit for their spells.  They suffer difficulties with armor, have poor hit points, etc.  Divine casters don't suffer these penalties...and yet have the exact same Summon Monster list.  Does this mean that the divine version of Summon Monster is overpowered?

Item: Elsewhere wizards gain certain spells at later levels than clerics do.  And they get some spells at earlier levels than clerics do.  Are these spells overpowered for the class that gets them earlier?

Item: One could argue that arcane casters are better at direct damage, whereas divine casters are better at healing.  Are the arcane direct damage spells thus overpowered?  Are the divine healing spells?

Personal conclusions:  As I've actually stated waaaaaaay earlier in this thread, even considering Astral-Construct and Blasty powers, there are also quite a few categories where (IMO) the arcane spell list far and away beats out the psionic power list.  Among them: Battlefield control, party buffs, illusions, protective wardings...though without some means of scoring this probably isn't going to establish much.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 17, 2005)

Okay.. Want to compare?

Let's compare..

Which is better?  A Pit Fiend or a 'Level 9' Astral Construct? 

Which is more powerful?  A Balor or a 'Level 9' Astral Contstruct?

Just comparing the abilities, I have to give both comparisons hands down to the Pit Fiend and the Balor being better than the AC on almost every level.

Wizards and Clerics can summon both of those.  So, who then has the most powerful summoning spells?  Not the Psionicist according to what I see.


----------



## Diirk (Jun 17, 2005)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Just comparing the abilities, I have to give both comparisons hands down to the Pit Fiend and the Balor being better than the AC on almost every level.
> 
> Wizards and Clerics can summon both of those.  So, who then has the most powerful summoning spells?  Not the Psionicist according to what I see.




To be fair, it doesn't cost 1000 xp to summon an AC 9...


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 17, 2005)

Diirk said:
			
		

> To be fair, it doesn't cost 1000 xp to summon an AC 9...




It doesn't cost 1000 exp to summon a Pit Fiend either... and, technically, you can compare the pit fiend to a 'level 8' AC..

So, which is more powerful?  The Pit Fiend or the Level 8 Astral Construct?


----------



## Diirk (Jun 17, 2005)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> It doesn't cost 1000 exp to summon a Pit Fiend either... and, technically, you can compare the pit fiend to a 'level 8' AC..
> 
> So, which is more powerful?  The Pit Fiend or the Level 8 Astral Construct?




You mean Greater Planar Binding? Again, AC doesn't take 10 minutes to cast or days to negotiate, plus with the pit fiend's will save and SR positive results are fairly unlikely...


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 18, 2005)

And, if you're going to compare a Shaper's 'shtick' of creating an AC, then you have to compare it to a Conjurer's 'shtick' of Conjuring creatures.

I could sit and compare a weak class with weak feats all day to anything else and say the better one was overpowered, but if I'm not going to use *everything* in the core to make that comparison, then the comparison is flawed, is it not?

Again, as Scion and others have said,  making a comparison to *one* underpowered summoning spell in no way proves that the Psion is overpowered.  It just proves that CM is *underpowered*.


----------



## Seeten (Jun 18, 2005)

Some realistic tests: Make a pure Summoner Arcane Caster with all the feats, As I am Necromantically inclined, try a Necromancer/Pale Master with the Libris Mortis Feat trees for Corpse Crafting, and a Psion Shaper with all the appropriate feats to make AC Better.

Then check the Animated Dead with the AC's. I'd be interested in which is better. Once done, make a Cleric with an appropriate PrC focused on summoning, and all the summoner feats, and check it against the Psion Shaper.

When done, try a base druid against an Egoist, all wildshape feats/natural spells, and see who shapechanges/spell casts better, the Egoist, or the Druid.

I am pretty confident in each of these, the Psion makes a reasonable, but less powerful alternative, and keep in mine, in each case, this is ONE type of Psion, and shapers are not egoists are not telepaths etc.


----------



## green slime (Jun 19, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Ok then, compared with druids and clerics, psions need a 'major' boost.




I'd disagree with that conclusion.


----------



## green slime (Jun 19, 2005)

Seeten said:
			
		

> When done, try a base druid against an Egoist, all wildshape feats/natural spells, and see who shapechanges/spell casts better, the Egoist, or the Druid.




Define "better" and you might have a chance. 

Better = More powerful spells/powers per day? 
Better = Faster shapechanging or casting? 
Better = More Flexible? (and what does that mean?)
Better = More spells/powers per day?
Better = More shapes per day?
Better = More powerful shapes per day?
Better = Most mango?


----------



## Seeten (Jun 19, 2005)

green slime said:
			
		

> Define "better" and you might have a chance.
> 
> Better = More powerful spells/powers per day?
> Better = Faster shapechanging or casting?
> ...




That depends on what your definition of "is" is.


----------



## Scion (Jun 19, 2005)

green slime said:
			
		

> I'd disagree with that conclusion.




Since I guess this is some strange amalgamation thread about the psion I'll ask the question, why? 

I'll post a bit here, you can post why you disagree with the conclusion and/or about the parts as you like of course.

hd: d8 vs d4
BAB: Medium vs Poor
Saves 2 good vs 1 good
Proficiencies: all simple weapons, all armors, all shields but tower vs 6 simple
Spells/powers: full access of total list vs small subsection of list
The psion also has: 5 bonus feats and a discipline (the discipline can be looked at two ways, either it opens up powers that were not accessible before or it makes you choose which small subset of a secondary list you will be able to choose from)
The cleric also has: turn undead, 2 domain powers, 2 domain spell lists (can be looked at as above, but double, and they get all of them so they dont have to choose a limited number of them, but they cant use their normal slots to cast them generally), much higher spell point equivalency, spontaneous healing/inflicting, and some extra bonus languages.

So, since the cleric is majorly ahead in base you must mean in some comparison of powers vs spells. Are the psion powers so very much better than the clerics to make up for the above? If so, how?

Edit: I just counted. The cleric, if you count his level 0 and level 1 spells, has more total choices than a level 20 psion. (12 0th, 25 1st = 37 total, add in that domains might give 2 more that is up to 39, vs a 20th level psions 36, and this is with zero splat books) I thought it was interesting


----------



## green slime (Jun 20, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Since I guess this is some strange amalgamation thread about the psion I'll ask the question, why?
> 
> I'll post a bit here, you can post why you disagree with the conclusion and/or about the parts as you like of course.
> 
> ...




I'm not going to state why I disagree with your position, as you have already made up your mind, and I mine.

Just quite plainly, I do not think psions need a "major boost", at all, in comparission with either the cleric or the druid.


----------



## green slime (Jun 20, 2005)

Seeten said:
			
		

> That depends on what your definition of "is" is.




Well, thanks. That will surely lead the discussion forward. As opposed to asking for more qualifiers in order to obtain a more objective yardstick.

I guess now you know why I won't participate in this pointless debate further.


----------



## A Man In Black (Jun 22, 2005)

green slime said:
			
		

> I'm not going to state why I disagree with your position, as you have already made up your mind, and I mine.
> 
> Just quite plainly, I do not think psions need a "major boost", at all, in comparission with either the cleric or the druid.




Care to explain it for the rest of us?


----------

