Why Psionics is broken and what to do to fix it

[IcyCool]

Or are you strictly limiting your exclusionary principle to Orbs, such that I can safely rely on other things in my arguements, without you having access to a 'doesnt count, broken' whenever I say something you dislike?

Since you refuse to discuss based on just the Core, yes. I'll give a shot at discussing Core+Complete with the just exclusion of the Orb spells. I'm probably forgetting something else I consider broken, but what the hell, I like to argue.

You do, I hope, understand my reluctance to debate on the terms as they appear to be offered?

Reluctance to debate on the terms of just core? No, I don't understand it at all.

Reluctance to try and hit a moving target? Yes, which is why I've agreed to exclude just the orbs.

I'd wager that you understand why I think using the Complete books is probably an exercise in futility (though I suppose it's remotely possible you think the Complete books are completely fair and balanced?).

As for balancing off the baseline and fixing the extremes... agreed, wholeheartedly. With that provisio, I will be honest:

1.) I do not belive that any proof or arguement I submit will be in any fashion convincing to you.

You'll note that I've not outlawed Psionics in my game. I'm well aware that different != better. Thus far, I have seen a very powerful showing from a wilder. I'm also not coming into this with the default mindset of "Psionics is broken".

3.) I am not comfortable with my ability, limited to core only, to decisively prove that Arcane is not just better, but so much better as to render the answer obvious. Core only, I belive its pretty close. Further, that would seem to require me to prove a negative 'Psionics is not Broken'. I am much more comfortable proving a positive 'Arcane can do many things better than Psionics'

I'm interested in seeing just how "equal" psioncs and arcane are. I'm not interested in "Psionics is broken" or "Arcane is broken". If, in the pursuit of equality, Psionics shows itself to be obviously weaker, or obviously stronger, I think the answers to broken questions will become evident.

4.) As, again, we are both well aware of the impact of the baseline assumptions on the character of debate, you will pardon me if I question the purity of your motives, when those pure motives also, purely by happenstance, lead to the set of baseline assumptions that most favour your position and most hinder mine.

No offence, but if you feel that a Core only comparison is a hinderance to you, then a debate would be a waste of my time. Regardless, I'll give a shot to discussing Core + Complete - the Orb Spells (which I think are obviously broken and which, in my opinion, make Arcane casters over the top).

I rather suspect that if we were to debate on a Core basis only, we'd find that the real issue lies in a small subset of spells and powers, and not with the base classes themselves.

 

[Marcus Smythe]

Since you refuse to discuss based on just the Core, yes. I'll give a shot at discussing Core+Complete with the just exclusion of the Orb spells. I'm probably forgetting something else I consider broken, but what the hell, I like to argue.



Reluctance to debate on the terms of just core? No, I don't understand it at all.

Reluctance to try and hit a moving target? Yes, which is why I've agreed to exclude just the orbs.

I'd wager that you understand why I think using the Complete books is probably an exercise in futility (though I suppose it's remotely possible you think the Complete books are completely fair and balanced?).



You'll note that I've not outlawed Psionics in my game. I'm well aware that different != better. Thus far, I have seen a very powerful showing from a wilder. I'm also not coming into this with the default mindset of "Psionics is broken".



I'm interested in seeing just how "equal" psioncs and arcane are. I'm not interested in "Psionics is broken" or "Arcane is broken". If, in the pursuit of equality, Psionics shows itself to be obviously weaker, or obviously stronger, I think the answers to broken questions will become evident.



No offence, but if you feel that a Core only comparison is a hinderance to you, then a debate would be a waste of my time. Regardless, I'll give a shot to discussing Core + Complete - the Orb Spells (which I think are obviously broken and which, in my opinion, make Arcane casters over the top).

I rather suspect that if we were to debate on a Core basis only, we'd find that the real issue lies in a small subset of spells and powers, and not with the base classes themselves.

You know, I was ready to paint you with the broad brush there for just a little bit, but the last comment really rings a bell.
(And no, I dont begin to think the Complete books are completely fair and balanced.. but then again, I dont think Core is, either.)
I agree. Completely.

Things that cause real problems:
1.) Anything that gives more/extra actions
2.) Shapechange, or any of its cousins.
3.) Anything that denies a save, while still having a winning, or near-winning, effect.
4.) Gate
5.) Lotsa stuff I forgot.

Once we peel back those things, what weve got is..
1.) Psions are more on-the-fly flexible, Wizards are more absolutely flexible.
2.) Psions do Direct Damage better. Wizards do board control better.
3.) Psions self-buff better. Wizards do other-buff better.
4.) Psions self-defend primarily via extra HP and AC type effects, with some nod to some decent swift-action effects. Wizards self defend via avoidance and mitigation type effects. The Wizards defenses tend to be more absolute in nature, but require more setup time.
5.) A purpose built psion, core only, frequently meets or exceeds the ability of a wizard to accomplish that core purpose (especially if its in line with the "Psion Strengths", above.. Im less sure belive a purpose built Psion board-controller would match a wizardly counterpart). However, the Wizard will generally out-perform the Psion at things the Psion is not built for.
6.) The relative abilty of each to shine will be closely tied to the amount of encounters per day (more favours the Wizard, though eventually both run out) the freedom of action available to the players (again, more favours the Wizard, whereas in tighter games, the Psion shines), and similar to the last, the amount of information available to the players (For obvious reasons)
6a.) The ability of the Psion to still shine, even when the GM is restricting player freedom of choice, information gathering, and even when the GM is throwing high-CR but not fully thought out encounters at them (The classic CR+5 single-encounter one-bad-guy day) probably contributes alot to the perceptions of psionics.. it is exactly the GMs who feel the most need to keep their players and game tightly under control (for reasons good or ill, its a difference of style) who will see the most difference in performance between the Psion and the Wizard. It is also such GMs who are most likely to respond poorly when a PC exhibits behaviour outside of the GMs expectations.
7.) Given all of the above, and purely in my experience playing a Kineticist in the company of a Wizard, the two complement each other in a single party, with the Arcanist providing problem-solving and board control, and the Psion providing focused combat power and flexibility in the form of what utility powers the Psion DOES know (and thus, the Wizard need never memorize). If I had to only have one, in a purely-numbers-crunchy game, my choice would depend, I belive, on the composition of the rest of the party and the nature of the game (relative to issues in '6', above).
8.) When performing at his best, the Wizard makes the whole party shine, while appearing to do very little (at least in terms of damage or death), until the Wizard SoDs a given foe (doing X damage, where X is the targets HPs). The latter is percieved as fairly normal by D+D players "Yup, he failed his save. Happens." When performing at his best, the Psion (at least the most-reviled flavours, the Construct-Creators and the Energy-Throwers) tend to shine themselves, while sharing little light with the rest of the party. Their actual in-game impact will be the same, but they can make the rest of the party feel as if their contributions are not meaningful. And when it comes time to blow away the BBEG... for reasons unknown (though I am guilty of this myself) the ability to make a bad guy with 300 hit points fail a save or die half the time (rounds to kill=2) is percieved as much less useful than the ability to blow away half the bad guys HPs in a round (rounds to kill=2).

 

[Marcus Smythe]

Random Thought on Character Balance:
1.) The real issue of balance is one of actual play, at actual tables.
2.) Thus, balance is an issue between actual characters in play at those tables.
3.) A version of almost any character concept can be built (given sufficient materials) that will perform beyond the level allowed at any table I have ever played at.

If you accept all of the above, the question becomes.
1.) What is the target-point of character balance/character power in this game? Are we looking at 'My character is tough, so Ill take Toughness'? Are we looking at 'Complete Divine Cleric Archer or attendant CoDzilla build'?
2.) Once we know what our performance target is, can we allow each player to play a character that fits his concept, that is in line with that performance target?
3.) Can we trust our players not to exceed that performance target by a significant margin?

I know I'm pushing this from Player-vs-Environment balancing to Cooperative-Storytelling-In-character-Creation, and I dont mean to duck out of our ongoing conversation... but this came to me last night as I was discussing balance and Psions with the arcanist in our play group, and I didnt want to see it lost.

 

[takasi]

I just dont see how we can get anywhere in any sort of balance debate if you presuppose your ability to throw out anything you wish, by calling it 'Broken'. Then we arent debating balance as between X and Y, but as between X and whatever you fell like Y is at the time.

Just wanted to add that this is the same logic as rejecting comparisons to core material because it is "underpowered".

Personally I find it much better to compare supplement to supplement instead of class vs class. I think it would be more rational to compare various builds based on options from book x vs options from book y.

 

[Marcus Smythe]

Just wanted to add that this is the same logic as rejecting comparisons to core material because it is "underpowered".

Personally I find it much better to compare supplement to supplement instead of class vs class. I think it would be more rational to compare various builds based on options from book x vs options from book y.

You are mischaracterizing my statement. I suggested that I preferred not to do core only in a debate context, as I felt that doing so would be choosing the debate context that was most favourable to the opposing position. I suggested Core+Complete as a middle ground.

While it might well be enlightening to do comparisons based on Core+X, then Core+Y, then Core+X+Y, etc., doing so exhaustively would be a full time job.

P.S.: I wonder if wed been better served to have a debate thread and a discussion thread, rather than doing both in the same thread. I'm having trouble keeping track of which rules I'm supposed to be operating under at any given point.

 

[Tikiman]

I should note that one problem with sarcasim is that it can be difficult to recognize... Frankly, this is one of the issues that smilies are supposed to address. You might want to consider their use.

I tried that here;

Couldn't you do us all a favor and beat him until he makes a character on par with the rest of the group? I recommend Complete Psionic, as it's probably the only thing the book does properly.

Though, actually, in your case it may be best to just apply this system to wildstarsreach only.

and got the response;

The Erudite is out of the Complete Psionic which unlocks the book and restrictions on the powers as recommended. My god, could psionics possibly be imbalancing or are you being an ......................

So when I do use smileys, even when talking to someone else, it is still taken as a direct assult on him. :\

I do? How would you know with out having been to our game? Is this a case of where direct knowledge necessary to make a judgement?

Actually, you provided direct evidence for this assumption in the following;

I intend to run a human Erudite whom I think is potentially more broken...

I sit and make a character every level for replacement who is a straight Psion every level in case the DM does kills the character. The character would be 90% or the current character.

I love the psionics as they are because I see the advantages. From a power gaming perspective, a Psion or Erudite is the class to play. Think about that. Why do most players choose to play a class. #1 Power

Funny thing is that when I made some suggestions about how to scale back, they said don't do so on account of us. That is why I will continue to pick the best for the character.

I am a power gamer. I'm not unabashed about that. My style will take things to an extreme so that the rules will be tested.

And I've got 5 pages to go if you want more.

Boy did I miss that. I'll have to think about that.

I really can't wait to see the outcome of this.

 

[wildstarsreach]

Is the psionic part of the feat(s) psionic shot/weapon subject to power resistance. I haven't found any but My memory isn't what is was 20 years ago.

 

[Frylock]

Yes, They're Broken

There's one thing relevant to this discussion that my undergraduate degree in Physics taught me: theory is just theory; if reality says differently, then you must change your theory. Psionics are broken. Anyone who claims not to see that has his head in the sand. You can throw out any "logical" and mathematical arguments as to why psionics is balanced, but when there's a psionicist at the table, he's doing more damage and than even the warmage (see my home game for an example ) and his Call to Mind (XPH, page 82) makes him just as valuable outside combat. Do you think it's a coincidence that power gamers are attracted to psionics? They know that their characters will be the most powerful at the table.

Now it's a matter of figuring out how to fix psionics, which I'd really like to do being that I like my players to have any character concept they want. I'd prefer a simpler route than many of you have provided, and I have a suggestion, but I'm not a power gamer, so I don't have the precise mathematical answer.

The problem appears to be (IMHO) that a psionicist is able to increase his "spell slot" without any real consequences. That is, I've never seen a psionicist run out of power points. Although they always complain about not having enough, when they're complaining, they're at about 50% max, which to a power gamer is a horrifying thought. If a psionicist is constantly augmenting but the extra cost doesn't have the consequence of taking him out of future encounters (or skill checks, etc.), then the system is broken. Can anyone (other than a power gamer that thinks 50% PP = 0 PP) really say that this hasn't been their experience with psionics?

So, my suggestion is to adjust the augmentations so that psionicists and spell casters are running out of "spells" at about the same time. Does that mean adding 1 to the augmentation formula, doubling the augmentation formula, or what? I don't know, but I'm guessing one of you guys/gals is willing to do the math. Go to, for example, Force Screen, XPH, page 108. Augmentation: for every 4 additional PP, the AC improves by 1. Instead, we could say "for every 8 additional PP" (PP x 2) or "for every 5 additional PP" (PP + 1).

Maybe there's a slightly more complicated formula that would be better. For example, PP + 1 for powers of a certain type, and PP x 2 for powers of another type. Of course, these are just examples. Maybe the answer is PP x 8, for all I know (although I doubt it's that high).

Granted, this solution won't balance each power as well as the suggestions above, and a uniform formula might actually make certain powers useless, but it wouldn't take a doctoral thesis to address.

 

[Marcus Smythe]

There's one thing relevant to this discussion that my undergraduate degree in Physics taught me: theory is just theory; if reality says differently, then you must change your theory. Psionics are broken. Anyone who claims not to see that has his head in the sand. You can throw out any "logical" and mathematical arguments as to why psionics is balanced, but when there's a psionicist at the table, he's doing more damage and than even the warmage (see my home game for an example ) and his Call to Mind (XPH, page 82) makes him just as valuable outside combat. Do you think it's a coincidence that power gamers are attracted to psionics? They know that their characters will be the most powerful at the table.

Now it's a matter of figuring out how to fix psionics, which I'd really like to do being that I like my players to have any character concept they want. I'd prefer a simpler route than many of you have provided, and I have a suggestion, but I'm not a power gamer, so I don't have the precise mathematical answer.

The problem appears to be (IMHO) that a psionicist is able to increase his "spell slot" without any real consequences. That is, I've never seen a psionicist run out of power points. Although they always complain about not having enough, when they're complaining, they're at about 50% max, which to a power gamer is a horrifying thought. If a psionicist is constantly augmenting but the extra cost doesn't have the consequence of taking him out of future encounters (or skill checks, etc.), then the system is broken. Can anyone (other than a power gamer that thinks 50% PP = 0 PP) really say that this hasn't been their experience with psionics?

So, my suggestion is to adjust the augmentations so that psionicists and spell casters are running out of "spells" at about the same time. Does that mean adding 1 to the augmentation formula, doubling the augmentation formula, or what? I don't know, but I'm guessing one of you guys/gals is willing to do the math. Go to, for example, Force Screen, XPH, page 108. Augmentation: for every 4 additional PP, the AC improves by 1. Instead, we could say "for every 8 additional PP" (PP x 2) or "for every 5 additional PP" (PP + 1).

Maybe there's a slightly more complicated formula that would be better. For example, PP + 1 for powers of a certain type, and PP x 2 for powers of another type. Of course, these are just examples. Maybe the answer is PP x 8, for all I know (although I doubt it's that high).

Granted, this solution won't balance each power as well as the suggestions above, and a uniform formula might actually make certain powers useless, but it wouldn't take a doctoral thesis to address.

Objection. Assuming facts not in evidence.
I deny your anecdotes, and substitute my own!

-aside to Tikiman- I've been playing Good Cop. This one seems to require Bad Cop, you want it?

 

[Nifft]

There's one thing relevant to this discussion that my undergraduate degree in Physics taught me [...] I don't know, but I'm guessing one of you guys/gals is willing to do the math.

I've heard math is a key ingredient to physics.

Why don't you help us do the math?

Cheers, -- N