Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 4844404" data-attributes="member: 65637">Not to sound like an infomercial, but if you liked Hyperconscious check out Untapped Potential by Dreamscarred.  They've got two new base classes - a ranged attacker a'la ranger and party leader/supporter called Society Mind who is awesome - and a new type of psion meant to mirror specialist wizards.  Oh, and variants of Wilder and Soulknife that don't suck horribly.  It also has some fun PrCs, like Psychic Acrobat (If you ever play a city based game, throw in one of these.  It's a match made in "THAT'S SO AWESOME" heaven) or Mavrick Voidshaper (Think of it as a more caster-esque Elocator).  I recommend it strongly.As for CPsi, while it had one or two things, these are one or two in a sea of bad.  Most of the problems come from two sources: 1) They just didn't care (There's no errata for CPsi, and it needs it, so badly) or 2) they didn't know how psionics work.  There's no way I can read the "errata" and think "oh my, these people understand psionics well!"  I'd insert a complaint about having to pay for errata here, but the "errata" was so incredibly bad that I think 99% of people just ignore it for the trash it is.I'm sorry, but if you're writing a book for psionics, I'd like to think that one of the main things you ensure is that the developers in question understand how the freaking mechanics work.  "Hey, I can't help but notice that all these psionic abilities don't take an enemy's DR into account."  "That's because magic doesn't."  "Well, let's change it so magic still ignores DR, but psionic abilities don't!"  Or how about "You know, I was playing a shaper the other day, and I summoned more then one creature!"  "Yeah, that's how summoning works."  "NOT FOR PSIONS, NOT ANYMORE!"  The only two things that could've happened are 1) the people writing it simply didn't comprehend how psionics or, hell, all of D&D works (See also Practiced Manifestor and the "How the hell does this work?" nature), or 2) They hate psionics and made the book in an attempt to scare people away from it (See also the errata that provides hilariously unneccisary nerfs to abilities that were at times underpowered to begin with).Smaller problems include not quite grasping that the game goes beyond level 3 (All of Lurk ability DCs are 10+int.  Seriously.  At level twenty, your DC is going to be, like, 18.  Man, I wonder how many monsters will fail those saves?), that classes are meant to be good (Ardent and Divine Mind were originally one class.  It was split because it didn't suck enough, apparently), that giving the customer something for his buck is a good thing (More then half the feats could all be combined into one, and I believe it's the shortest Complete X book that was made), and that editing is for losers (For the sake of the editors listed in the book, I like to think that they're lying and that they didn't actual edit it.  The alternative, that they did edit it, but did that horrible of a job, is just too pathetic too imagine)....Ahem.  Long story short, I don't have high expectations for 4e psionics.  CPsi was the last psionic stuff that Wizards printed, and you can see how much it's loved by people.  The problem Wizards is going to go up against, is that there's not a lot of lukewarm people regarding psionics - most people either love it or hate it, and the ones that don't care either way usually didn't allow them in games anyways.  You aren't going to win over the people who hate it, so your goal should be to retain the lovers and win over the lukewarm people.  As I mentioned in my first post, doing that is tricky, and so far they've been recieving a lot of well deserved anger from psionic fans for CPsi and it's lack of errata, and for the Eberron book completely removing all psionics (Sarlona a place with rampant magic?  Really Wizards?  The big, main, number one psionics place in the setting...and you removed the psionics?)</blockquote>

Verification