Is the Psion class balanced?

[Plane Sailing]

Myth: The XPH is overpowered.

Read it.

He is right in a few areas and badly wrong in a few others. It is a useful addition to the discussion but not the be-all and end-all of it by any means.

Cheers

 

[KarinsDad]

See link posted by Iron Mark (thanks by the way it is very good material). It is not a “free” action it is an immediate action which takes up the swift action for next round, essentially allowing one every other round (the elan will end up taking damage on at least one round).

For example in the bathhouse scene you laid out.

2 attempted CdG in sequential rounds. Well since a CdG is an automatic hit that does a critical your elan could have negated the first one (at a fairly hefty pp cost) but the second one couldn’t have been negated since his swift action was already performed for that round and the damage had been done before his next action – where he could use another swift action.

This is incorrect.

From the Wizards site:

Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn.

This portion is only relevant to using an immediate action on your turn. That is not what is occurring in the bathhouse scene, so we continue on:

You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn).

This is the relevant text.

So, in a two on two situation:

Assassin does Coup De Grace Round One: Psion does Resilience (using up the immediate action of her next turn)
Psion does power on Round One, cannot do immediate action or swift action during her turn

It is now after the psions turn, so the immediate action immediately resets.

Assassin does Coup De Grace Round Two: Psion does Resiliance
Psion does power on Round Two, cannot do immediate action or swift action during her turn

Rinse and Repeat.


You are always using up your next Swift Action (which only occurs on a character's turn) with your current Immediate Action, regardless of whether you do that Immediate Action before your turn or during your turn.

Once a character's turn is over, the immediate action immediately resets in order to allow him to use up the Swift Action of the next turn.


Unlike normal actions that effectively reset at the start of the character's turn, immediate actions reset after the end of the character's turn. If you assumed that they could only reset at the start of the turn like other actions, it is understandable that you would think that you could only get in one immediate action outside your turn every other round.

But, this is not what the text states.

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad I would appreciate if you would attribute your quote properly. Why you put my name in instead of the person you are quoting I have no idea.

Sorry. Cut and paste error.

I started to reply to his message, then changed it to a similar topic message by you, then changed it back to his message and forgot to change the name back.

Opps.

Fixed now.

 

[irdeggman]

This is incorrect.

From the Wizards site:


Quote:
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn.




This portion is only relevant to using an immediate action on your turn. That is not what is occurring in the bathhouse scene, so we continue on:


Quote:
You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn).

If you bold the next portion it sure says that you are using it for the upcoming turn.

You get 1 swift, 1 standard and 1 move action per turn - unless under the effects of haste or something similar.

An immediate action just allows you to use your next swift action early vice at your normal turn in the initiative order.

regardless then if your turn has passed in the initiative order strictly you can't use an immediate action.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you bold the next portion it sure says that you are using it for the upcoming turn.

Precisely. The upcoming turn, not the upcoming round.

You get 1 swift, 1 standard and 1 move action per turn - unless under the effects of haste or something similar.

Precisely (shy of full round actions, etc.).

An immediate action just allows you to use your next swift action early vice at your normal turn in the initiative order.

Not quite sure what you meant by the word "vice" here, but if you meant:

An immediate action just allows you to use your next swift action early or at your normal turn in the initiative order.

then I agree. Immediate actions can be done outside your turn in place of the swift action of your next turn, or they can be done inside your turn in place of the swift action of that turn.

regardless then if your turn has passed in the initiative order strictly you can't use an immediate action.

Sorry, but this does not make sense. Nothing in the text states that this is bounded by the beginning or ends of rounds. Nowhere does it state that you can only use an immediate action before your turn, but only in the same round as your turn previous to your initiative.

The text you bolded did not change the rule to your interpretation.

Once your turn is past, you can then immediately use an immediate action for your NEXT turn. The sentence you bolded does not change that in any way, in fact it supports it.

It explicitly states and then clarifies the rule:

"You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn"

"effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn"

Not my turn (regardless of whether it was after my init last round or before my init this round) - use immediate action using up swift action for the coming turn
My turn - no swift or immedate action available
Not my turn - use immediate action using up swift action for the coming turn
My turn - no swift or immedate action available


Reverse the order of the words in the rule, maybe that will clarify it.

If you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn, you cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn.

This does not say:

If you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn and it is now your turn, you cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn.

In the two character scenario, it does not matter if the NPC won initiative or the PC won initiative. The PC is still allowed the same actions.

 

[irdeggman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by irdeggman
If you bold the next portion it sure says that you are using it for the upcoming turn.


Precisely. The upcoming turn, not the upcoming round.

Sorry, but this does not make sense. Nothing in the text states that this is bounded by the beginning or ends of rounds. Nowhere does it state that you can only use an immediate action before your turn, but only in the same round as your turn previous to your initiative.

Once your turn is past, you can then immediately use an immediate action for your NEXT turn. The sentence you bolded does not change that in any way, in fact it supports it.

An immediate action just allows you to use your next swift action early or at your normal turn in the initiative order.


It appears as if we are either saying the same thing and arguing for the sake of arguing. What I had intended to state was that the immediate action uses up your next swift action – period. This means that you can use it once a round. I guess my use of rounds was confusing I was trying to tie it into your psion’s action (my insertion) into the initiative order.

Which meant that at most the PC could negate a single attack per round - whether from a CdG or from an AoO.

 

[KarinsDad]

It appears as if we are either saying the same thing and arguing for the sake of arguing. What I had intended to state was that the immediate action uses up your next swift action – period. This means that you can use it once a round. I guess my use of rounds was confusing I was trying to tie it into your psion’s action (my insertion) into the initiative order.

Which meant that at most the PC could negate a single attack per round - whether from a CdG or from an AoO.

Ok. I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that by "one every other round" below that you did not mean once per round.

It is not a “free” action it is an immediate action which takes up the swift action for next round, essentially allowing one every other round (the elan will end up taking damage on at least one round).

Going back to your earlier post:

Can’t use immediate action to negate this one since PC is flatfooted. {If DM allowed this, which you aren’t sure of but think he/she did – then first DM error.}


What benefit does this do from the assassin’s PoV? Drowning takes several rounds.
{Potentially second DM error, by not using NPC’s abilities to max.} Could/should have instead attempted a CdG.

Inserting assumption here that Elan character performed some psionic action, although not specified in your post. Generates an AoO which requires concentration check in order to allow completion of psionic manifestation. {If AoO was successful, need to make concentration check to get off manifestation and then could negate by using immediate action which uses next round’s swift action – but that will cause a skip in the following chain of negating damage with immediate actions, IMO you would choose to negate the CdG vice an AoO normally so end up taking this damage.}


CdG – auto critical hit. Elan PC uses ability to negate damage (hence using up next round’s swift action)

Insertion of psion’s manifest action. {again not mentioned, but hard to imagine you didn’t do something}. Generates an AoO – if hits can’t negate since used used up next round’s swift action to negate CdG (smart choice would be to use it on any CdG vice an AoO) and ned to make concentration check to get of manifestation.}


Auto critical. Can negate by using immediate action (and next round’s swift action) but at a pp cost (2 hit points per pp and since damage is at least (d4 +STR x2) for a dagger starts to add up).

Several assumptions here:

1) The Assassin knew of the PC's ability to manifest while paralyzed. I suspect that the Assassin merely pulled the PC into the water to drown the PC and to temporarily hide the body. Or possibly because the Assassin was evil and wanted the PC to die a slow horrible death instead of a quick one. This is called roleplaying. Some DMs do it. Once opponents stop fighting and are helpless, NPCs (and PCs) do not necessarily CDG as their first action after they think the fight is over. That's called metagaming. Both players and DMs sometimes do it (i.e. the DM knows the PC is capable of psionically counterattacking, so the DM does CDG until he is sure the PC is dead).

In our game, PCs have sometimes looted bodies first once opponents were down. They have sometimes done CDG first (in rare cases where they absolutely wanted to ensure that the enemy would not be getting back up). They have sometimes hidden bodies first. They have sometimes ran away immediately (depending on situation).

The NPC Assassin from her point of view was no longer in combat once the PC was paralyzed in the surprise round. It's only when I counterattacked in round one that she knew something was wrong. Now, whether her initiative beat mine so that she could pull my PC into the water before the PC counterattacked is something that I do not remember. I do remember her pulling my PC into the water. Even if the Psion won init, maybe she pulled the PC into the water to muffle the sounds of battle. I don't know. But, this is not necessarily a bad move on the Assassin's part. That's metagaming thinking.


2) You assume an Attack of Opportunity every round. A Psion can manifest defensively unless you take a real literal reading of the rules.

Now, this is an interesting rules situation. You get an AoO for someone manifesting. If they are paralyzed, how do you know they are manifesting in order to get an AoO (what if they hide the displays)?

They can also attempt to manifest defensively which in the text states that they need to dodge and weave. Well, they cannot dodge and weave if helpless, so does that mean that they cannot manifest defensively when helpless? From a literal rules perspective, they cannot. I suspect that this was merely flavor text to explain why an AoO occurs (this is not the explanation for cast defensively), but it could easily be literally ruled no manifesting defensively while helpless.

This has always been a hole in the AoO rules. If a Wizard is prone next to you and casts a spell, you get an AoO against him. If a Wizard is prone next to you and is invisible and casts a spell with no Verbal component (and potentially no other components), you get an AoO against him. If a Wizard is prone next to you unconscious (or stunned), you do not get an AoO against him. The unconscious Wizard has more of a defense against a free attack then the conscious Wizard detectable or not (unless there is a rules change in 3.5 that I am unaware of).


I do not remember the order of battle, nor all of the powers I manifested. I do know that I manifested an Astral Construct to distract and damage her, I manifested a Vigor to keep me alive longer, and I manifested an Energy Bolt Sonic (or Energy Ray Sonic, not sure which) to both damage her and to alert my allies.


In any case, the situation was probably adjudicated reasonably ok. Psions are not truly helpless, even when paralyzed. No amount of "Did your DM remember to do this?" is really going to change that.

 

[Caliban]

Myth: The XPH is overpowered.

Read it. NOW.

Make me.

 

[helium3]

I agree. At 7th level, it is real strong against half the classes. As you get higher up, there are more ways to defeat it.

As DM, I cast Evard's on the PCs again this afternoon. The 10th level PC Warmage who died some time back had turned into a Vampire Spawn Warmage. He is intelligent, more capable than before, and he knows the PCs tactics. So, he Fireballed them in the surprise round, Evard's them in round one, and dropped Cloudkill on them in round two. Unfortunately for him, the Spellsword again got out in round one and dropped 40+ points of damage on him in round two and he had to flee, so he did not get a round three attack.

And again, they mostly got out of the Evard's in fairly short order (one PC is 11th level, the rest are a few hundred XP shy of 11th). The only PC who was still stuck in it after round 2 was the party Wizard (the previous player of the Warmage) and that was because he had cast both of his Teleports that day and did not also take a Dimension Door. But, the Spellsword Dispelled the Evard's in round three and so they did not have to resort to anything extreme to free the Wizard.

So in at least our game, it has not been an overpowered spell, at least at 9th or 10th levels.

Yeah, that sounds about right. I just about TPK'd my party the first time I used Evards against them. They went up against a 15th level Lich and for some odd reason, no one had EVER used that spell before in our group. If I remember right, everyone was obsessed with evocation spells and had never seriously considered offensive uses of the conjuration school. So when the Lich nailed them with Evards, then an acid fog and then started blinding anyone that came out of the Fog they just freaked out. The monk made it out of the fog but then got nailed with a blindness and was subsequently useless. The only reason the party managed to survive was because the Cleric of St. Cuthbert used his strength domain ability to resolve the grapple check in his favor, got out of the fog while moving away from the Lich and then dispelled the tentacles.

Basically, Evards is a lot nastier until players start taking getting out of grapples into acount when building their characters. Once the Wizard starts devoting one spell slot to Dim Door, things are not so problematic. Course, most wizards don't want to do this when they only have one or two slots. I also think that a significant number of D&D players haven't actually played many games where 4th level spells are common. I've noticed on these boards that there's a fairly strong belief that levels above ten are just too difficult to play. There was a poll about it I think.

 

[helium3]

I'm not going to get too much into this thread o' doom, but I had to pull out this point for rebuttal. If a sorcerer has used his 2 7th level spell slots for the day, he cannot expend a 3rd and 4th level slot to cast another th level spells. He is done casting 7th level spells, no matter how much he might need another one. A psion, on the other hand, can expend every single one of his power points on 7th level powers, and is never stuck with no options but 4 cantrips and 3 1st level spells. This is far more flexible "casting" than the sorcerer or bard, and cannot be ignored when examining the power of the psion's abilities.

If a sorcerer or bard could spent 4 cantrips to cast a 2nd level spell, they would have "exactly the same ability to cast spontaneously as psionic PCs". As it is, they don't.

Oh no. I wouldn't disagree with you on that point. I don't know if you read the entirety of my overly-long post, but I did point out that Psions are much more flexible than Sorcerers and therefore sorcerers should have a greater amount of "oomph" per day. Should Psions have more oomph that Wizards? Probably. Do they have too much now? Maybe. My own personal playtesting (and incredibly subjective at that since I start from the premise that I LIKE psionics) is that Psions are certainly one of the more powerful classes now, but that they aren't generally overpowered as long as ALL the rules are being followed. Our group had major problems when we started using Psionics and the guy playing the character didn't know the rules well enough.

If you look at my comment in context, I believed I was responding to an overly broad statement that spontaneous casting was in effect unfair. As far as I could tell, the guy I was responding to made absolutely no qualifications regarding his statement. He simply stated that it was unbalancing that a wizard cannot cast the same spell again in the way that a spontaneous caster (although he specifically said Psions) can.