For Nail - The Psion

[KarinsDad]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

1) A sorcerer gets around 50% more total spell levels/power points than a psion does, meaning they can last 50% longer spell slinging than a psion, or they can discharge 50% more spells in a combat while lasting the same amount of time. If a player is conserving his casting abilities over the course of the day to remain useful to the party at all times, then a sorcerer will be putting alot more into each fight than a psion will.

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

Energy Ray, ML 7, 4th level power equivalent = 7d6+7
Sorching Ray, CL 7, 2nd level spell = 8d6
Empowered Scorching Ray, CL 7, 4th level spell equivalent = 12d6

Energy Ray, ML 11, 6th level power equivalent = 11d6+11
Sorching Ray, CL 11, 2nd level spell = 12d6
Twin Spell Scorching Ray, 6th level spell equivalent = 24d6

Energy Ray, ML 20, MORE THAN 10th LEVEL POWER EQUIVALENT = 20d6+20
5 Scorching Rays, CL 20, 10 total spell levels = 60d6
Twin Spell Split Ray Empowered Scorching Ray, CL 20, 10th level spell equivalent = 48d6

The damage comparison isn't the best because it isn't really effective at high levels, but its the most direct. People suggesting a psion should burn 20 pps on a lowly energy ray or crystal shard to do 20d6 is like telling someone to go buy a ferari, then strip the engine and put it in a ford pinto because the pinto will go just as fast.

3) There are more sorc/wizard spells than psion powers. More than twice as many in the PHB alone by the way. There are 162 psion/wilder powers in XPH, compare to 371 sorcerer/wizard spells in the PHB. Even if you count all the disciplines and psychic warriors, and the powers that mimic a bunch of sorc/wizard spells at a time (astral construct, animal affinity, even energy ray as scorching ray and polar ray) you still end up with more spells than powers. Think about this carefully. THERE ARE MORE SORC/WIZ SPELLS IN THE PHB THAN THERE ARE TOTAL POWERS IN THE XPH. There are more 1st - 4th level spells in the PHB than there are psion/wilder powers. That alone means there are at least 200 spell effects that no psion can duplicate with a power.

A wizard gets bonus feats and may specialize. Another reason the posters here think wizard is a better comparison than sorc. On a further point, a wizard is not forced to specialize, a psion is. Further all the psion gets for his trouble is access to a subset of powers that otherwise would have existed as regular psion/wilder powers.

B. Psions have more diversity than even the diverse SPONTANEOUS spellcaster in the core books, the Sorc . . .

The core word is flexibility, since as stated before, there is an impossibly massive difference in the number of spells to chose from and the number of powers to choose from.

Sorcerers get more spells per day, this is a marginal difference at best. If you count 0th level spells, the sorc ends up with more known, and everything that was a 0th level power in 3.0 has become a 1st level power in the XPH, meaning a psion spends more to know it and more to manifest it (little useful things like create sound, far hand and detect psionics).

2) A psion can power a lvl 1 spell into a lvl 20 spell. (I have noted this IS easier to protect against than most higher lvl Sorc spells, IN THE CASE THAT, you are currently affected by some form of spell lvl immunity.)

He also pays out his ears in power points for it, as I mentioned above, the resources expended to do this are equivalent to firing off 20 first level spells, or a 9th level spell and a 2nd level spell.

3) I see it as the Psion can essentially metamagic any power immediately versus the 1 round it takes the Sorc to due so. Even if I am incorrect & they can't meta them immediately...

A wizard doesn't take extra time to metamagic his spells. Although a Psion can metapsionic his spells in one round, he has to expend a psionic focus to do it. A wizard can apply a metamagic feat to a 1st level spell up to three or four times (Maximized, Empowered, and Quicken). A psion can metapsionic a psionic power generally only once because he has to expend his psionic focus.

Plus if a psion wants to do it more than once per combat, or use more than one feat at once, it takes at least two other feats to do so, often as many as three (Psicrystal Affinity, Psicrystal Confinement, Psionic Meditation). It still takes him actions to regain focus, too.

In effect, if he has NO OTHER FEATS except the metapsi, he has 1/combat instant metamagic, but has to take a full round action PLUS the manifesting time for each subsequent time.

If he has more feats, it tends to alter things a bit, since some feats (like Up the Walls) work only when you're focused (so you don't want to metapsi all the time) and others also require you to expend focus (Fell Shot comes to mind for many psions, or possibly Power Penetration if you insist on it). And you have but one focus to spend without a lot of other feats.

4) Isn't empowering a 1st lvl spell by adding power points, in itself, a FREE empowerment feat?

Yep, if fireballs never do more than 5d6, or scorching ray more than 3d6, or no greater dispel magic existing. In actuality this is closer to a free heighten spell than a free empower spell. The DCs increase as you spend more points, at the same rate they would for heighten spell, the extra damage is effectively the result of the psion manifesting the power as one of higher level. Don't compare a 20d6 energy ray to a 1st level spell, compare it to a spell(s) that takes equivalent resources to spend (a 9th and a 2nd, an 8th and a 3rd, a 7th and a 4th, etc)

 

[Thanee]

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!

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

Also hopefully the above didnt come off too harsh.

No worries.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scion]

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.