Opinions of Expanded Psi-handbook

[DragonLancer]

The new psionics book is a great improvement over its predecessors. A top notch job.

The Psychic Warrior needs to have a Fighter BAB to be worth playing. As it is, its no where near as good as playing a straight fighter.

The SoulKnife... well, if they want this as a base class then they should have made it more rogue-like and have it fit that paticular niche for the psionic classes. As it is, its not bad, but it was better as a PrC.

 

[Piratecat]

The Psychic Warrior needs to have a Fighter BAB to be worth playing. As it is, its no where near as good as playing a straight fighter.

I couldn't disagree more. I'm not sure if you're playing one right now, but my 8th level psiwarrior is (with prep time) the equal or better of the other fighter-types in the group. Being able to boost to hit rolls with insight bonuses is a wonderful advantage; add that to other stat-boosting powers and you have a very flexible and effective combatant. The only person he can't out-damage is the barbarian with the thundering great axe.

Of course, without prep time he's not as effective at hitting in combat as the other fighter-types, although his damage potential is just about the same due to his feats. When I get deep impact next level and can make touch attacks, I'll gain a bit more as well.

My impression is that changing the psiwarrior to a fighter BAB would be a very bad mistake. I also don't think he needs a skill point boost, although that would be less unbalancing.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

That's why it's a percentage. A deliberate design decision in 3e is that rolls that's can't be modified by skills et al (like concealment) would be percentile, and rolls that could be modified would be d20.

Well, telling me that in a matter of fact tone certainly is not going to change my mind, all it's going to do is make me more likely to do it to spite you.

I don't appreciate the "I'm smart, you're stupid" tone, expecially when you don't put forth any rational reason other than WotC said so in your post. If you had logic and numbers to back you up, then I would forgive you.

Oh, and I gave psywarrs 4 sp and gave them the skills that they were missing from 3.0. And I recomend everyone do the same, it's not unbalancing, it's Balancing, because the psywarrior is a tad on the weak side, that's unbalanced.

 

[Piratecat]

Whoa, nellie. I'm not telling you how you should run it in your game, and I'm certainly not trying to be condescending. I'm simply telling you that from WotC's point of view what you're seeing as a bug they see as a feature. We were told this during 3e playtesting, and I figured you didn't know.

I'm not sure why you reacted this way, but my apologies if you read my post as having the wrong tone.

I'll ask: what aspects have you seen in your game which make you think the 3.5 psiwarrior is a little bit on the weak side? I disagree, but it's quite possible that I've missed something which hasn't yet surfaced in play.

 

[Psion]

Well, telling me that in a matter of fact tone certainly is not going to change my mind, all it's going to do is make me more likely to do it to spite you.

I don't appreciate the "I'm smart, you're stupid" tone,

I'm not seeing that he was trying to be rude at all. He was telling you because you apparently didn't know that it is intentional that things which are not modified by typical modifiers (levesl, skills, attribute bonuses, etc.) are modeled as percentages.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I don't appreciate the "I'm smart, you're stupid" tone, expecially when you don't put forth any rational reason other than WotC said so in your post. If you had logic and numbers to back you up, then I would forgive you.

Oh, and I gave psywarrs 4 sp and gave them the skills that they were missing from 3.0. And I recomend everyone do the same, it's not unbalancing, it's Balancing, because the psywarrior is a tad on the weak side, that's unbalanced.

Um, 'WotC said so' is about the ultimate rational reason when discussing design or rules issues. Agree or disagree all you want, but when the people that make the game say 'It's X because we wanted Y to happen' the discussion of 'why' is pretty moot.

And where exactly are the logic and numbers to back up "because the psywarrior is a tad on the weak side, that's unbalanced'. I'd trust the judgement of someone like Piratecat who's got tons of in-game experience, especially when he's playing the class in question.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Well, telling me that in a matter of fact tone certainly is not going to change my mind, all it's going to do is make me more likely to do it to spite you.

It's "matter of fact", because that's just the way it is.

I don't appreciate the "I'm smart, you're stupid" tone, expecially when you don't put forth any rational reason other than WotC said so in your post. If you had logic and numbers to back you up, then I would forgive you.

While I know Piratecat doesn't really need anyone to defend him, I found your tone insulting nonetheless. You made a comment. Piratecat gave you the reason. There was no tone. Taking the tone you are with one of the most helpful and knowledgable people on this board is not going to win you any friends, won't make you look somehow cool and hip, and will only make it so that noone else wants to help you out because you obviously don't really want that help.

 

[Piratecat]

It's okay, gang. Everyone has bad days. I'd rather get back to the topic of the thread -- how good the XPH is.

 

[BryonD]

The psion and the psychic warrior work for me. The biggest problem with the update is that aspect that WotC doesn't seem worry about enough: backwards compatability.

That is a very big deal this time.

However, I blame it on the low quality of the original. We just converted my wife's Nomad and choose to bite the bullet and hand-wave away a little dis-continuity in exchange for a what appears to be a better system to use from here forward.

Not saying you are wrong at all. But I think being to tied to the 1st book could have been even worse. Now if they had been able to build ITCK and Mindscapes into the new WotC stuff, then maybe they could have worked something out....

Soul knife I don't like and don't see how it broad enough to justify a core class. I'll chalk this up to the 3.5e era design team annoying tendency to make core classes at the drop of a hat. This won't be making it into my game.

I really agree here. And I usually do not mind new core classes. But this concept just screams prestige class. The vision of a world with a bunch of 1st level guys running around making psi-blades just doesn't click for me at all.

Other than that, I like the way they tweaked the powers and specialities. Seems to work well in most cases.

Agreed

 

[Gez]

The soul-knives as a core class makes me a bit think of AU's witches. A psionic witch with the blade manifestation can look superficially like a soul-knife.