StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You know what's even better than this 'Turn a barbarian into a Hydra' schtick?

Crystallize the arcane caster, whose fort save will tend to suck.

lance again proves he talks a big game but doesn't grasp Rule One of casters: Damage means nothing. Save or Lose is king.

hey nit & others, after playing "Darklands" I was inspired to make a wizard who was into making potions and other alchemy as a means of spell casting...

so instead of a fireball he's got a flask of greek fire....

lance wrote:<snip pages and pages of repetitive bullshit and distortions we've already been over>
Don't just spout off crap and expect me to believe it. I have stated why I think its better, the loss of about 5 to hit and damage is out weighed by the 9 extra attacks.

You dumb shit, I have been demonstrating it for the last couple pages. Flesh to stone, disintegrate, chain lightning, mass suggestion, acid fog, circle of death. All of which ice the opponent that your barbarian is going to stagger after or that your evard's black tentacles will wave at from across the room. Your now tiresome response will inevitably be "but, but, those spells have counters!" No shit moron, so does nearly every other ability in the game.

(Notice too, how lance repeats the idiocy about 9 attacks and gear, and continues to completely ignore the AC/speed setback.)

Which is why when you manage to drag up a couple of spells that come close in power, when augmented up to nearly the same spell level, under certain conditions that can just as easily apply to the 6th-level spells, that it's still the same load of irrelevant bullshit you've been feeding me since page 3.

Can the wizard produce effects which are less than his highest-level spells? Yes. Can those effects produce similar results in the long run to the psion merely dumping all his power into his highest-level effects? Only if the DM adheres to the recommended encounter-pacing schedule.

Not As Easy != Hard. There's really no reason why most players would dig through Serpent Kingdoms for an, IIRC, 16 HD critter to turn into. Most, however, would immediately notice 'oh hai get (su) and Spell-Like from t3h critter'.

"Can I polymorph into a sarrukh?"

"No."

"Can I be a Planar Shepherd?"

"No."

You are missing the point, which is that neither of these instances of poor editing affect the overall power level of the campaign setting they are associated with. So stop saying Eberron's unbalanced and I'll stop saying FR is unbalanced.

Oh. Wait.

I never said FR is unbalanced anyway.

BTW, I like how I'm "aquarious" now. Lance, just admit you fucked up on Overchannel like a man. It does raise your ML, but there's a price tag.

Lance IS right that polymorph crushes encounters. Hydras have attacks out the ass and regenerate. If you turn the right guy into one at the right time, one encounter is trashed. I've seen an 11th level guy save the party from a CR 15 with that trick.

Woo, telepaths are slightly better at dominating than wizards. Except for all those things that are immune to mind-affecting or compulsions. Wizards' versatility does matter. And while it is a two-saver, wizards get phantasmal killer at the same level.

I don't really mind that psions can dominate monsters earlier, either. I'm not a big fan of "charm X creature" being lower level than "charm any creature," as I don't think it's a good way to balance things anyway. Let the telepath be the telepath. The teep still can't do programmed amnesia like the wizard, aka "foolproof way to make anything your slave for life."

Crystallize is comparable to flesh to stone or baleful polymorph, so I'd call that a tie.

Psions are generally inferior in terms of save-or-dies. The only other thing they get before 8th level (in the XPH, they did pick up a decent one in CP) is the reprehensible psychic crush. Good idea for a power but the save bonus makes it worthless.

You dumb shit, I have been demonstrating it for the last couple pages. Flesh to stone, disintegrate, chain lightning, mass suggestion, acid fog, circle of death. All of which ice the opponent that your barbarian is going to stagger after or that your evard's black tentacles will wave at from across the room. Your now tiresome response will inevitably be "but, but, those spells have counters!" No shit moron, so does nearly every other ability in the game.

Now this is funny. Psions have analogues to two of those powers. Three if they are a telepath or a kineticist. Up to four using feats.

It occurs to me that in the damage-dealing sweepstakes they don't even get the orbs that wizards use to ignore SR. They just get crystal shards which as per CP (and my DM's ruling even before that) are affected by DR.

Can the wizard produce effects which are less than his highest-level spells? Yes. Can those effects produce similar results in the long run to the psion merely dumping all his power into his highest-level effects? Only if the DM adheres to the recommended encounter-pacing schedule.

It doesn't even need to be the recommended one. Just make sure there are consequences when they try to scry-and-die, or blow their load in one encounter and scurry away. I play just as dirty as my players. In my last game I had a kineticist with 28 AC and a tendency to do 100 damage a round, a Jade Phoenix Mage (form of gish) who tended to do MORE damage a round, a warblade/bard who granted the party insane bonuses, a thri-kreen dervish with attacks/round to rival a hydra, and a rogue who was, well, a rogue. And if I'd played the adventure as written they would have walked all over it. but with a little beefing up and a few self-designed encounters...well, let's just say that they were plenty scared of TKO.

Anguirus wrote:

Turin wrote:You dumb shit, I have been demonstrating it for the last couple pages. Flesh to stone, disintegrate, chain lightning, mass suggestion, acid fog, circle of death. All of which ice the opponent that your barbarian is going to stagger after or that your evard's black tentacles will wave at from across the room. Your now tiresome response will inevitably be "but, but, those spells have counters!" No shit moron, so does nearly every other ability in the game.

Now this is funny. Psions have analogues to two of those powers. Three if they are a telepath or a kineticist. Up to four using feats.

And here Anguirus proves that he's just as fucking stupid or illiterate as Lance. The argument I was making, before Lance decided (and failed) to nitpick it to death, was that the psions batch of 12 6th-level powers overwhelmed the wizards 2 at the same level (for 12th-level example characters). I know the 6th-level powers are analogous to the 6th-level spells, shit for brains, otherwise what would be the point of comparing those numbers?

Anguirus wrote:

Turin wrote:Can the wizard produce effects which are less than his highest-level spells? Yes. Can those effects produce similar results in the long run to the psion merely dumping all his power into his highest-level effects? Only if the DM adheres to the recommended encounter-pacing schedule.

It doesn't even need to be the recommended one. Just make sure there are consequences when they try to scry-and-die, or blow their load in one encounter and scurry away. I play just as dirty as my players. <snip>

Which I said somewhere back on page 2 or so. Thanks for finally catching up. The primary complaint is that it forces a particular style of play on the DM.

I know the 6th-level powers are analogous to the 6th-level spells, shit for brains, otherwise what would be the point of comparing those numbers?

Well, it's just that you were making my point for me that wizards are more versatile than psions.

Which I said somewhere back on page 2 or so. Thanks for finally catching up. The primary complaint is that it forces a particular style of play on the DM.

Even when there are no psions in the game I feel pressured to have more than one encounter a day. Wizards' free scaling turns fireball into a virtual 5th level power for the cost of a 3rd level spell slot (and scorching ray into a virtual 6th level power for a 2nd level slot), so their novas can also be hugely effective. Also consider the incredible impact of metamagic rods on a wizard's nova. A psion may be better than a wizard or a cleric at novas, but one encounter a day still is bad for game balance.

ESPECIALLY when you consider that most high level combats only last a few rounds anyway.

Anguirus, don't strawman. The argument is not 'There must be more than one encounter a day' when speaking of the tempo Psions generally need. It's really quite sad that we'd get to that point.

Then what is Turin's particular style of play that psions force on the DM?

Turin wrote:

lance wrote:<snip pages and pages of repetitive bullshit and distortions we've already been over>
Don't just spout off crap and expect me to believe it. I have stated why I think its better, the loss of about 5 to hit and damage is out weighed by the 9 extra attacks.

You dumb shit, I have been demonstrating it for the last couple pages. Flesh to stone, disintegrate, chain lightning, mass suggestion, acid fog, circle of death. All of which ice the opponent

No all of them, except for acid fog which is a fourth level spell with a slight increase in power and a draw back,might Ice your opponent, which is one of the points I was making.

that your barbarian is going to stagger after or that your evard's black tentacles will wave at from across the room. Your now tiresome response will inevitably be "but, but, those spells have counters!" No shit moron, so does nearly every other ability in the game.

More like look up at as dying or be crushed to death. The only counter that I really care about is the one for suggestion, mostly because it tends to be not see able, lasts for over an hour at this level, and has a 10 foot emanation. Counters for the other effects exist, but most of the time they have shorter duration and you can tell if it is on or off.

(Notice too, how lance repeats the idiocy about 9 attacks and gear, and continues to completely ignore the AC/speed setback.)

If the speed is going to matter then the spell caster can, oh I don't know, due something else? Either from using a different form such as war troll, which would increase the barbarians speed and damage or cast a different spell.
As for the AC, I don't really care, the spell will heal him some, and increase his damage and likely his reach.

Which is why when you manage to drag up a couple of spells that come close in power, when augmented up to nearly the same spell level, under certain conditions that can just as easily apply to the 6th-level spells, that it's still the same load of irrelevant bullshit you've been feeding me since page 3.

The spells I listed are barely weaker to their 6th level counter parts. Circle of death kills a bunch of mooks, Evard's kills a bunch of mooks. Takes a little longer but they still wind of dead. Circle of death has a bigger radius. Evard's can kill undead and constructs but not incorporeals. It also doesn't break invisibility. Likely has trouble with creatures that are bigger than large, but they tend to have a bit of HD.
Acid fog deals a 2d6 damage to every creature and object in it, solid fog doesn't destroy the loot.

Can the wizard produce effects which are less than his highest-level spells? Yes. Can those effects produce similar results in the long run to the psion merely dumping all his power into his highest-level effects? Only if the DM adheres to the recommended encounter-pacing schedule.

I'm maintaining that the effects are slightly worse than his higher level spells, and as such his top 2 or 3 spells levels will be filled with things that are just as good as the psionics fully augmented powers.

Anguirus wrote:

Lance, just admit you fucked up on Overchannel like a man. It does raise your ML, but there's a price tag.

I didn't mess up Nirtam misread what I wrote a ridiculous number of times.

Lance IS right that polymorph crushes encounters. Hydras have attacks out the ass and regenerate.

They don't actually get regenerate, they get extraordinary attacks when they take said shape, not qualities.

Anguirus wrote:Then what is Turin's particular style of play that psions force on the DM?

The number of encounters per day a psion generally needs to avoid becoming the centre of attention.

Or are you so stupid you can't read that sentence without going 'dur-ur, dat means one encounter or more!'?

SirNitram wrote:

Anguirus wrote:Then what is Turin's particular style of play that psions force on the DM?

The number of encounters per day a psion generally needs to avoid becoming the centre of attention.

Or are you so stupid you can't read that sentence without going 'dur-ur, dat means one encounter or more!'?

It would be nice it was an actual number and not a vague statement. Don't suppose you could go into a little more detail than that?

lance wrote:

SirNitram wrote:

Anguirus wrote:Then what is Turin's particular style of play that psions force on the DM?

The number of encounters per day a psion generally needs to avoid becoming the centre of attention.

Or are you so stupid you can't read that sentence without going 'dur-ur, dat means one encounter or more!'?

It would be nice it was an actual number and not a vague statement. Don't suppose you could go into a little more detail than that?

It'd be nice if you argued logically, instead of dodging, strawmanning, and lying. But since I'm better than you, I'll give a real answer: It's not fixed. It depends on, primarily, the Psions level. As discussed earlier, a 12th level Psion can pump out 13 powers at maximum, through augments or just being their top level. That would imply that for them to be doing anything but dominating the map, you need more than 13 encounters. This scales both up and down, especially when the various PP manipulation tricks come in(Temporary PP? Better make sure to extend encounters apart from one another. Free Manifesting? Add more encounters. And so on.).

Are you going to deal with any of the stuff you've been dodging? Or will you just demand others do all the hard thinking?

SirNitram wrote:

lance wrote:

SirNitram wrote: The number of encounters per day a psion generally needs to avoid becoming the centre of attention.

Or are you so stupid you can't read that sentence without going 'dur-ur, dat means one encounter or more!'?

It would be nice it was an actual number and not a vague statement. Don't suppose you could go into a little more detail than that?

I'll give a real answer: It's not fixed. It depends on, primarily, the Psions level. As discussed earlier, a 12th level Psion can pump out 13 powers at maximum, through augments or just being their top level. That would imply that for them to be doing anything but dominating the map, you need more than 13 encounters. This scales both up and down, especially when the various PP manipulation tricks come in(Temporary PP? Better make sure to extend encounters apart from one another. Free Manifesting? Add more encounters. And so on.).

So in your campaigns spell casters end every encounter with one spell? Seriously? I could see 13 rounds of combat, but encounters sounds kinda wrong.

lance wrote:So in your campaigns spell casters end every encounter with one spell? Seriously? I could see 13 rounds of combat, but encounters sounds kinda wrong.

No, but higher level spells the caster generally gets only one of those off an encounter. Of course, since an arcane caster generally doesn't have 13 of their top spells, I can shorten it up quite a bit.

But hey, feel free to be intentionally dense, because you're an idiot. They're not called Save Or Lose for nothing, but you're too busy jerking off to direct damage.

I'm not going to continue to address Lance's series of distortions and nitpicks, but instead leap to this:

lance wrote:

Turin wrote:Can the wizard produce effects which are less than his highest-level spells? Yes. Can those effects produce similar results in the long run to the psion merely dumping all his power into his highest-level effects? Only if the DM adheres to the recommended encounter-pacing schedule.

I'm maintaining that the effects are slightly worse than his higher level spells, and as such his top 2 or 3 spells levels will be filled with things that are just as good as the psionics fully augmented powers.

And holy fucking shit, Lance has actually made an argument, and it makes something resembling logical sense. Of course, it's predicated on distortions, but at least it follows from his assumptions. I will concede that the next level down for the wizard is plenty close to count in amongst his highest level powers, but the lower level slots, with the exception of a perhaps one or two specific spells in specific situations, don't make the grade. This still leaves him well behind the psion in equivalent "throw weight."

I wouldn't go as far to say as you would need 13 encounters per day to put the screws to the psion (as I'm not sure why Nitram thinks a caster can generally only get one of his higher level abilities off in an encounter... in fact, that's the "nova" problem, right?). But you do need to make sure you definitely need to give the full 4 encounters each day, or at least make the psion think he's going to get them. With the wizard it's much easier to make him feel spent. Just for example, how many 12th-level wizards do you know are going to feel comfortable going into their 4th encounter of the day, having blown their top 2 levels of spells already?

Turin wrote:

I'm maintaining that the effects are slightly worse than his higher level spells, and as such his top 2 or 3 spells levels will be filled with things that are just as good as the psionics fully augmented powers.

And holy fucking shit, Lance has actually made an argument, and it makes something resembling logical sense. Of course, it's predicated on distortions, but at least it follows from his assumptions. I will concede that the next level down for the wizard is plenty close to count in amongst his highest level powers, but the lower level slots, with the exception of a perhaps one or two specific spells in specific situations, don't make the grade. This still leaves him well behind the psion in equivalent "throw weight."

How about 4th level spells versus 6th level? Acid fog versus solid fog or tentacles versus circle of death? Would you say those spells would be about on the same range of usefulness? Acid fog essentially does negligible damage over solid fog. Evard's loses out to high strength thugs but has a chance of affecting things that have over 9hd. Loses out on area big time, I'll admit but that is mostly it..

With the wizard it's much easier to make him feel spent. Just for example, how many 12th-level wizards do you know are going to feel comfortable going into their 4th encounter of the day, having blown their top 2 levels of spells already?

When I played casters I would feel fine, even if I was out of 5th, because 4th level spells are just not that much weaker than 6th. The saves if any are down by 2, the increase in effect tends to mostly be area.

SirNitram wrote: No, but higher level spells the caster generally gets only one of those off an encounter. Of course, since an arcane caster generally doesn't have 13 of their top spells, I can shorten it up quite a bit.

I think that is only because of the casters small amount of spells. I think if they had 13 of them and no low level ones that they would be casting more of them an encounter.

SirNitram wrote:But hey, feel free to be intentionally dense, because you're an idiot. They're not called Save Or Lose for nothing, but you're too busy jerking off to direct damage.

I brought of direct damage very little, unless solid fog, polymorphing or evards are direct damage. Hell I even called the damage acid fog did negligible. Most of what I supported was battle field control, debuffing and buffing.

lance wrote:

SirNitram wrote: No, but higher level spells the caster generally gets only one of those off an encounter. Of course, since an arcane caster generally doesn't have 13 of their top spells, I can shorten it up quite a bit.

I think that is only because of the casters small amount of spells. I think if they had 13 of them and no low level ones that they would be casting more of them an encounter.

As someone whose used the point based systems of D&D before, that's a fucking duh. Of course, since the arcane caster gets few and the psion can go all day, that's a balance issue DMs wind up having to address.

SirNitram wrote:But hey, feel free to be intentionally dense, because you're an idiot. They're not called Save Or Lose for nothing, but you're too busy jerking off to direct damage.

I brought of direct damage very little, unless solid fog, polymorphing or evards are direct damage. Hell I even called the damage acid fog did negligible. Most of what I supported was battle field control, debuffing and buffing.

Since this thread degenerated into 'Contest it with whatever crap I find laying around' a while ago with your posts, Psions and Arcanes are shitty battlefield controllers, get a Dragonfire Adept or whatever it is from Dragon Magic, or a Knight from PHB2. Arcanes and Psions should do as they always have: Bring the save or lose spells against the tough guys.

It depends on, primarily, the Psions level. As discussed earlier, a 12th level Psion can pump out 13 powers at maximum, through augments or just being their top level. That would imply that for them to be doing anything but dominating the map, you need more than 13 encounters.

I have never found this to be the case. In my experience psions spend PP on defensive and utility powers because they don't like being dead. They also can have very tough times with SR and high-save monsters like any caster. Also, blaster psions are usually encouraged to deal with mooks, and that can easily soak up a lot of PP.

Psions and Arcanes are shitty battlefield controllers, get a Dragonfire Adept or whatever it is from Dragon Magic, or a Knight from PHB2

Wizards are far better at battlefield control. Arguably that's what wizards are BEST at, and they get far more stuff in this vein then psions do. (Battlefield control is also less dependent on pumping saves and spell level.) Knight was a decent idea but it was blown out of the water by the crusader from ToB, and it barely has the feats to become a good battlefield controller. I don't know much about dragonfire adepts but they are similar to warlocks, who are decent BF controllers.

Psions do get to do the nasty "energy push + energy wall" trick, which is quite nice. Shapers can also influence the course of a battle, though magic summoners get a lot more creatures to play with.

Hurin:

But you do need to make sure you definitely need to give the full 4 encounters each day, or at least make the psion think he's going to get them. With the wizard it's much easier to make him feel spent.

Well, sure. Villains have no interest in letting you nova them, unless they themselves are casters or manifesters and are betting they can blow their load first. So they will use layered defense, ruses, etc.

But I like Sir Elton's take on this from the "Myth: The XPH is Overpowered II" thread at the WotC forum:

...they play to a Psionic's strength, one encounter per day, and claim it is broken. How broken would a fighter or warlock be if a party had 20 encounters per day?

Anguirus wrote:But I like Sir Elton's take on this from the "Myth: The XPH is Overpowered II" thread at the WotC forum:

...they play to a Psionic's strength, one encounter per day, and claim it is broken. How broken would a fighter or warlock be if a party had 20 encounters per day?

Which of those two extremes is more likely? Maybe it's just my group, but in the games I've played, more than two encounters in one day is rare. The only realistic scenario I can even think of that would result in more than six or seven encounters in a day is the party under constant raids with escape not an option.

Time-based adventures will encourage the party to keep moving. "Break up the demon council in three days or that's it for the Material Plane." Constant raids are, as you say, an option. Sometimes they make sense. If the party is using rope trick, have monsters (if they or their masters have scrying or some way to sense the disturbance) jump on them when they get out. If they dawdle, they run the risk of spies discovering them and letting their foes prepare for battle. If they decide to come back another day, the surviving foes fortify, regroup, and set new traps.

I see no real reason to get used to using a one or two encounter a day format even without psions managing their resources efficiently. The only times I do this is when the encounter is going to be HUGE and I figure they will need to nova to avoid TPK.

Anguirus wrote:I have never found this to be the case. In my experience psions spend PP on defensive and utility powers because they don't like being dead. They also can have very tough times with SR and high-save monsters like any caster. Also, blaster psions are usually encouraged to deal with mooks, and that can easily soak up a lot of PP.

It's not impossibly my experiences were anomalous, but my encounter rates per-day are pretty low unless I'm doing a dungeon crawl. Arcane casters need gimped enough as-is as a result, so I don't really care for someone who gets more of a boost from it.

Honestly, this is why I adore ToB's per-encounter mechanic. I can throw one or one hundred encounters at my players, and they'll have their primary powers right at the expected level.

Also, ToB has encouraged close combat to be more than abuse of power attack multipliers.

Wizards are far better at battlefield control. Arguably that's what wizards are BEST at, and they get far more stuff in this vein then psions do. (Battlefield control is also less dependent on pumping saves and spell level.) Knight was a decent idea but it was blown out of the water by the crusader from ToB, and it barely has the feats to become a good battlefield controller. I don't know much about dragonfire adepts but they are similar to warlocks, who are decent BF controllers.

A wizard aimed at battlefield control will pretty much dominate it, but there's relatively few I know who want to play wizards for that. As for Knight vs. Crusader, I'm in the air on that, but that's because I actually encourage anyone going for BFC to grab Knight and a Spiked Chain, for an instant area of difficult terrain.

As for DF Adepts, it combines the nice stuff from Warlocks with a Breath Weapon. Entangling Breath as a feat to add onto it, and your enemies get held in place by your breath, then carved up. It's beautiful stuff.

Psions do get to do the nasty "energy push + energy wall" trick, which is quite nice. Shapers can also influence the course of a battle, though magic summoners get a lot more creatures to play with.

I actually discourage summoning because of the bookkeeping, but that's a personal thing. And you are right about the XPH Myth thread: It's only unbalanced if your DM's style is incompatible with the way the Psion works. Mine is incompatible. Hence my entire argument.

If someone really wanted to play one, I'd just hand them Psi-Likes with a /encounter reset. It eliminates the damn issue.

Honestly, this is why I adore ToB's per-encounter mechanic. I can throw one or one hundred encounters at my players, and they'll have their primary powers right at the expected level.

I love ToB too! I have a feeling you will be a fan of Fourth Edition.

In my group (the one most of my anecdotes are from) I had a best-of-both-worlds nightmare scenario...a warblade using White Raven Tactics to front-load the kineticist's big blast twice in the first round of play. They didn't manage to break the adventure but sweet christ did that do a lot of damage. If I ever get that group together again I'm going to have my revenge by throwing a caster/manifester with 5 warblade flunkies at them.

I come from the "sure you can optimize all you want because I'm better at it" school of thought.

Though I have banned polymorph.

As for DF Adepts, it combines the nice stuff from Warlocks with a Breath Weapon. Entangling Breath as a feat to add onto it, and your enemies get held in place by your breath, then carved up. It's beautiful stuff.

Neat! A buddy of mine has Dragon Magic. One part of me is annoyed that the class seems to step on the toes of both the dragon shaman and the warlock, but another part is intrigued.

I actually discourage summoning because of the bookkeeping, but that's a personal thing.

I feel that. I've never banned it but I've never seen a player that was interested in playing one. I really like the idea of playing one but the bookkeeping and longer combats do not appeal to me.

I have used them as a DM because I can plan what they will do (complete with stat blocks) in advance.

If someone really wanted to play one, I'd just hand them Psi-Likes with a /encounter reset. It eliminates the damn issue.

That's an interesting idea. It makes me want to design a psi version of the Warlock (even though that's not quite what you're talking about). Maybe I can call it the Wilder since I love the idea behind that class, but loathe its mechanics.

So just to torture the psichers....

Nit, what's the AR value of a Dalek, perferably Time War era?