Response to Psionics Nerf (Move from inappropriate placement in House Rules thread)

I think the problem isn't actually the amount of encounters per day, but rather the total round length/duration of the encounters per day.

You could have 4 encounters per day, but if each and everyone of them lasted only one round, then you are hardly in much of a different situation than one encounter lasting four rounds. Slightly different with regards to boosts which may have expired, but that is about.

So a single combat lasting 20 rounds, is going to stretch a psion, as well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

irdeggman said:
And quite likely most others too. This could be atrributable to the native language difference.

A nova flares up, expends all of its resources at one time and is essentially a rock when done. Hence the term "nova" is used to indicate that the psion is using up all of his resources in a short period of time - not how quickly he can take down an opponent - that is just the net result.

Except that this is difficult to achieve in the game, hence, the term makes little sense that way.

It takes a 20th level Psion 20+ rounds at 20 PP per to go through all of his PP shy of using Quicken Power / Schism and even then, he would really have to push with Overchannel in order to do it in 8 rounds. Most combats do not last 8 rounds when a Psion is throwing out that much power (3 powers per round).

A 6th level Psion takes 7 rounds to go through all of his Overchanneled PP in a single encounter.

The point is, Nova as a "use up all PP" definition rarely happens in a game whereas Nova as a "blow through a lot of PP to end an encounter" might happen quite often. So, using the "use up all PP" definition does not make much sense to discuss as it should almost never happen in a game.

Why discuss something that should almost never happens in a game when instead we can use the definition for something that could happen every encounter day in the game?
 


wildstarsreach said:
Read this thread and you'll get an earfull of ideas and where the balances are.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170754

I already know what the balances are.

I basically (like others) totally disagree with your suggestions in that thread. Capping PP for low level powers does not address any real balance issues, rather it is a clunky bandaid that does not resolve the problem that it supposedly is meant to fix.
 

KarinsDad said:
Except that this is difficult to achieve in the game, hence, the term makes little sense that way.

The point is, Nova as a "use up all PP" definition rarely happens in a game whereas Nova as a "blow through a lot of PP to end an encounter" might happen quite often. So, using the "use up all PP" definition does not make much sense to discuss as it should almost never happen in a game.

Why discuss something that should almost never happens in a game when instead we can use the definition for something that could happen every encounter day in the game?

Because the term "nova" comes from what happens to a sun (as I pointed out). That is the comparison. At least 2 other people have posted in this thread that is what they thought the term meant also.

That is where the term came from, its root in origin of the word (from usage). Making it mean something else is bastardizing the word a lot and hence absolutely messing up its meaning, IMO.

"Going nova" means pretty much what I (and others have said). It is a potential that can happen, whether or not it happens frequently or not.

Dealing a lot of damage in a short amount of time is something completely different - and that seems to be what you are referring to by "going nova", ar at least the gist of it.

We need to use words as close to what they actually mean as possible or else we will continue to have sideways discussion becasue we are actually talking about different things.
 

irdeggman said:
Because the term "nova" comes from what happens to a sun (as I pointed out). That is the comparison. At least 2 other people have posted in this thread that is what they thought the term meant also.

That is where the term came from, its root in origin of the word (from usage). Making it mean something else is bastardizing the word a lot and hence absolutely messing up its meaning, IMO.

"Going nova" means pretty much what I (and others have said). It is a potential that can happen, whether or not it happens frequently or not.

Dealing a lot of damage in a short amount of time is something completely different - and that seems to be what you are referring to by "going nova", ar at least the gist of it.

We need to use words as close to what they actually mean as possible or else we will continue to have sideways discussion becasue we are actually talking about different things.

Then why are you not using the word as close to what it actually means?

Your definition is not the definition of Nova.

Look it up:

"A star that suddenly becomes much brighter and then gradually returns to its original brightness over a period of weeks to years."

Nowhere here is an indication that the star uses up all of its power.

Maybe you are confusing the term with Supernova where all of the fuel of a star is exhausted.

Semantically, your position here does not make sense, nor would it be a definition that happens often in a game.

If anyone is "bastardizing the word", it is you.


To Nova means to increase in intensity and then return to normal.

In other words, augment powers to their fullest for a while, and then stop doing that and go back to a more normal intensity of power.


And, just because several other people here mis-understand what the word means does not support your interpretation. It just means that several other people are also not familiar with the actual meaning of the word.
 

KarinsDad said:
Semantically, your position here does not make sense, nor would it be a definition that happens often in a game.

If anyone is "bastardizing the word", it is you.
Ahhh, there's the Rules Forum that I know and tend to avoid.

We'd been polite and productive for so long, I forgot what reality was like!

Helpfully yours, -- N
 

Nifft said:
Ahhh, there's the Rules Forum that I know and tend to avoid.

We'd been polite and productive for so long, I forgot what reality was like!
Summer vacation is over! It's back to school time, you know. ;)
 

There are some powers which take an immediate action to manifest or can be augmented to do so (e.g. intellect fortress, mental barrier), so psions do not need to take the Quicken Power feat or get the Schism power to blow thru more than their level in PP per round.
 

avr said:
There are some powers which take an immediate action to manifest or can be augmented to do so (e.g. intellect fortress, mental barrier), so psions do not need to take the Quicken Power feat or get the Schism power to blow thru more than their level in PP per round.

True, but those powers prevent Quicken Power from working in the same round, so it's basically a wash.

Either way, the max PP expenditure tends to be in the ballpark of one Immediate/Swift/Quickened Power, one Standard Power, and one Schism Power for an average of slightly less than 3x level PP max if totally augmented (give or take, Schism uses up 6 less points per round max).

There is a trick of using Fission to create two of you and then blow through about 5x level in PP per round, but that would be extremely rare and I suspect that very few (if any) players have ever "novaed" this way. Even so, the 20th level Psion doing this should have very few opponents left in 2 or 3 rounds, let alone the 5 rounds before he runs out of PP. One assumes that the rest of the PCs are typically not standing around doing nothing.

And of course, it would be pretty debilitating to Overchannel every round unless one uses Talented Overchannel. In that case, the focus is being used and that makes doing Quickened Powers more difficult in the same round. Course, a Wilder could Surge at a higher level, but Psychic Enervation should come into the picture sooner or later, even with the Complete Psionics feat to delay it.
 

Remove ads

Top