Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Psionics and Mystics Take Two

February's Unearthed Arcana article from WotC's Mike Mearls has been posted. This time around, the topic is psionics again "This month, Unearthed Arcana returns to the mystic character class and the rules for psionics. Based on the playtest feedback you sent us, there are a number of changes you can expect." The article expands the Mystic class to 10th level, and adds a variety of new options.

Find the article right here.

 

[RCanine]

Comparing a druid's 9th-level spells to a ranger's 17th-level spells is comparing apples and oranges, even though they both happen to have the label of "5th-level" spells.

I agree with this statement. Apples and Oranges are both tree-grown fruits that grow to similar sizes and have similarly-sized seeds. They both make delicious juice, and have a similar amount of sugar in them. Comparing either fruit by means of a third thing--say a high-speed train or an angry yak--they appear very similar.

I also like this statement:

[gaining powerful abilities at an earlier level than another class] could still be a balance problem, of course, but it would need to be evaluated as such holistically, taking into account the class' power budget as a whole, not picking out single abilities in isolation.

Since it suggests doing what the top of the post says is impossible.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm not seeing a point behind the pedantry.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not seeing a point behind the pedantry.

Let's compare shall we?

5th level Ranger attack spell - Conjure Volley: Range:150 feet, area 40 foot radius damage 8d8 (type varies by material component used)
5th level Wizard attack spell - Cloudkill (just because I hate flipping pages): Range:120 feet, 20 foot radius, 5d8 poison damage (Concentration up to 10 minutes).

Looks pretty darn close to me. Cloudkill might be a bit more effective, simply because of duration, but, then again, it's half the size. Used for maximum effect (ie, on as many creatures as possible), cloudkill would take several rounds to catch up to Conjure Volley to do the same total damage.

Cone of Cold - also a 5th level wizard spell deals 8d8 in a 60 foot cone. Again, same as Conjure Volley.

Seems pretty on par for spells of the same level.

Conjure Barrage - 60 foot cone, 3d8 damage. Significantly less than a fireball, but, you can also vary damage type, making it effective against fire resistant creatures. I'd still give the edge to fireball at 8d6, but, then again, we're not talking huge differences here. 3d8 averages 14 damage, 8d6 averages 24. Extra 10 damage on average, so, it's not like it's overwhelmingly better.

By and large, spells follow the chart on page 284 of the DMG - Spell damage. It doesn't differentiate those spells by class or by when a given class gains access to that spell. Damage is determined by spell level, period. A 5th level multi-target spell should do 8d6 damage. Conjure Volley is actually a bit strong for a 5th level spell. OTOH, Fireball is a bit strong for a 3rd level spell.

The question becomes, why? Why are these particular spells a bit stronger? Well, in fireball's case, everything and it's mother gets fire resistance. A LOT of creatures are resistant to fire, so, fireball, while a bit stronger over all, has a pretty big blind side. Same with Conjure Volley - these are non-magical ammunition - anything with resistance to normal damage is taking a lot less damage. Again, a fairly common resistance.

The power of a spell or a mystic power is not relative to the level at which you gain that spell. It is relative to the level of other spells/powers of the same level.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not seeing a point behind the pedantry.

The point is to refute your theory that spell levels are meaningless labels.

They're not; it's just that individual spells can deviate from the expected performance per spell level by quite a large amount.

To me, it's far more useful to keep talking about "3rd level spells" but to note Fireball (and blasty Wizard spells in general) as a known outlier, than to argue the notion is just meaningless labels.

A ranger or paladin can, roughly speaking, expect half the performance of her spells than a druid or wizard.

That doesn't mean they are only half as good. After all, several level 1 spells remain relevant at all character levels. This is what half casters need to exploit - trying to select spells that aren't as dependant on "caster level".

But going from this to "spell levels are meaningless labels" is going way way too far in that direction.

Regards,

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Conjure Barrage - 60 foot cone, 3d8 damage. Significantly less than a fireball, but, you can also vary damage type, making it effective against fire resistant creatures. I'd still give the edge to fireball at 8d6, but, then again, we're not talking huge differences here. 3d8 averages 14 damage, 8d6 averages 24. Extra 10 damage on average, so, it's not like it's overwhelmingly better.

A 70% improvement isn't "overwhelmingly better"?

The question becomes, why? Why are these particular spells a bit stronger? Well, in fireball's case, everything and it's mother gets fire resistance. A LOT of creatures are resistant to fire, so, fireball, while a bit stronger over all, has a pretty big blind side.

Lightning bolt.

The power of a spell or a mystic power is not relative to the level at which you gain that spell.

You seem to be thinking that I'm saying every spell gained at 9th level should be equivalent. I'm not. Obviously, ranger spells are weaker than wizard spells at that level, and we can indicate that relative weakness by saying that rangers get "3rd-level" spells and wizards get "5th-level" spells.

What I'm saying is that we should evaluate the balance of a class' spells relative to the levels at which the class gains the spells, not by comparing the spells to different spells that a different class gets at a different level. "3rd-level" is a rough indicator of the power of a 9th-level ranger's spells. If WotC prints a new 3rd-level ranger spell that's better than a 3rd-level wizard spell, this is not automatically a balance problem -- especially not if the spell is in an area where we expect rangers to excel and wizards not so much. Rangers are not wizards. They have different strengths and weaknesses, and different mechanical requirements. And the same, of course, goes for psions.

---

To me, it's far more useful to keep talking about "3rd level spells" but to note Fireball (and blasty Wizard spells in general) as a known outlier, than to argue the notion is just meaningless labels.

My point is that every casting class can (and should) have some of what you call "known outliers" on its spell list to represent the class' relative strengths and weaknesses in different areas of magic. If the psion is better than the wizard at telepathy and telekinesis, just call it a "known outlier" if you like and then move on, unless it actually breaks the game.

But going from this to "spell levels are meaningless labels" is going way way too far in that direction.

You're reading way way too much into that one sentence. I'm not advocating tossing out spell levels, and I think I was pretty clear about that in my post when I said, "It would have been more confusing for other purposes, but it would be more accurate for the purpose we're discussing here, of class balance."

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Lightning bolt.

Lightning bolt and Fireball both suffer from wish fulfillment. They were both only 6d6 during the playtest and they were both suddenly increased to 8d6 in the final version of the game. With no real discernible reason for it. My only guess is that fireball was known as THE powerful killing spell in previous editions and that with monsters hitpoints increasing during the final draft of the rules that it was no longer killing everything in the room and playtesters were unhappy about that, so they increased just fireball and lightning bolt in damage.

Mathematically, if you chart the average damage of all the damaging spells in the game, the curve is about even, except for fireball and lightning bolt which are both huge spikes.

Which is why I house ruled fireball down to 6d6 in my game. I left lightning bolt because no one ever prepares it and its area of effect normally means it hits about half as many enemies. That effectively halves its damage.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Mathematically, if you chart the average damage of all the damaging spells in the game, the curve is about even, except for fireball and lightning bolt which are both huge spikes.

Which is why I house ruled fireball down to 6d6 in my game. I left lightning bolt because no one ever prepares it and its area of effect normally means it hits about half as many enemies. That effectively halves its damage.

I guess it's your game and you can play Diana Moon Glampers if you want to, but I really don't see any reason for doing this. Like I said, "just call it a 'known outlier' if you like and then move on, unless it actually breaks the game."

 

[spartanah]

Scorching ray does give fireball a run for his dollar. It's not aoe but it can crit and doesn't disturb the melee fighters

 

[CapnZapp]

A 70% improvement isn't "overwhelmingly better"?

Lightning bolt.

You seem to be thinking that I'm saying every spell gained at 9th level should be equivalent. I'm not. Obviously, ranger spells are weaker than wizard spells at that level, and we can indicate that relative weakness by saying that rangers get "3rd-level" spells and wizards get "5th-level" spells.

What I'm saying is that we should evaluate the balance of a class' spells relative to the levels at which the class gains the spells, not by comparing the spells to different spells that a different class gets at a different level. "3rd-level" is a rough indicator of the power of a 9th-level ranger's spells. If WotC prints a new 3rd-level ranger spell that's better than a 3rd-level wizard spell, this is not automatically a balance problem -- especially not if the spell is in an area where we expect rangers to excel and wizards not so much. Rangers are not wizards. They have different strengths and weaknesses, and different mechanical requirements. And the same, of course, goes for psions.

---

My point is that every casting class can (and should) have some of what you call "known outliers" on its spell list to represent the class' relative strengths and weaknesses in different areas of magic. If the psion is better than the wizard at telepathy and telekinesis, just call it a "known outlier" if you like and then move on, unless it actually breaks the game.

You're reading way way too much into that one sentence. I'm not advocating tossing out spell levels, and I think I was pretty clear about that in my post when I said, "It would have been more confusing for other purposes, but it would be more accurate for the purpose we're discussing here, of class balance."

Well, it's not that one sentence.

You don't get to start a discussion (way back on the 8th if I trace the discussion correctly) and then ask us to ignore a single sentence and "then move on" when there are serious inaccuracies showing through your argument.

Yes, psionic characters can (and should) get especially strong spells of a certain level within their area of expertise, just like "blasty classes" get the juiciest 3rd level evocations.

But that should not overshadow a fundamental principle of all of D&D that holds true to this day: if you know nothing of a spell's power level, the first and most useful parameter to learn is the spell's level.

This leads to the fact that half-classes and one-thirds-classes will always have weak spells, relatively speaking. (A perfectly used level 1 spell can still decide an entire combat. This doesn't mean the notion of spell level is useless.)

So when Hussar told you that certain psionic effects were too good for the equivalent of a 1st spell level slot; please listen to him and agree the psion needs to spend more spell points for the effect.

(I really haven't scoured the entire discussion, I could have read you and others wrongly, and I certainly don't want to bring it all back up; I just need you to stand for what you have written instead of dismissing our concerns by conceding on individual points and then asking us to "move on")

regards,
Zapp

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You don't get to start a discussion (way back on the 8th if I trace the discussion correctly) and then ask us to ignore a single sentence and "then move on" when there are serious inaccuracies showing through your argument.

And you don't get to discredit my argument by alleging "serious inaccuracies" without any substantiation. Show me one inaccurate statement, and I'll correct it. But I can't do anything with an accusation that vague.

And while you're thinking about that, why aren't you going after Hussar for the inaccurate statements he's made? He didn't know the cast time of mind meld, said that fireball could only deal so much damage because of its fire typing, and tried to claim that there's not a huge difference between 14 and 24. (EDIT: Oh, and 8d6 actually averages to 28.) But his argument gets a pass?

So when Hussar told you that certain psionic effects were too good for the equivalent of a 1st spell level slot; please listen to him and agree the psion needs to spend more spell points for the effect.

First of all, Hussar never told me this. Secondly, even if he had, agreement doesn't follow from what you've said. You say spell level is "the first and most useful parameter", but it's certainly not the only parameter. The context of the class is critical as well. If, to give the hyperbolic example, the effect were the only ability the class had, then it may well still be weaker than the wizard, especially if the effect is not a quantifiable combat improvement. Yeah, cantrip fireball would be broken, but cantrip comprehend languages? No. The fact that a wizard needs to spend a 1st-level spell slot to achieve that effect doesn't mean that every character needs to.

(I really haven't scoured the entire discussion, I could have read you and others wrongly, and I certainly don't want to bring it all back up; I just need you to stand for what you have written instead of dismissing our concerns by conceding on individual points and then asking us to "move on")

I am standing for what I have written. You're the one trying to tell me what I meant when I wrote it. I'm conceding nothing; I'm drawing a line between my "differing power budgets" and your "known outliers" to show that we're actually just using different terminology for the same concept and basically agree on the matter. And it's very frustrating to have that thrown back in my face.