I am assuming, but I would like to know for another project I am doing, what the actual progression is.
Thanks
Sorry folks.
And like Bengeldorn said, it seems wrong that they would have a max level power increase, but no powers gained at that level is strange.
Anyway - Pennarin, Brax, and flip --> you have mail!
To all others - maybe keep an eye on the page of Athas.org to see if it changes.
We balanced the Psychic Adept against the Adept because it was convenient, but such balance was not even necessary. The DMG is clear that the Aristocrat and the Expert are considerably more powerful than the other NPC classes, and that includes the Adept. If our Psychic Adept were a hair stronger than the Adept, it's still well within the range for an NPC class. There's no reason other than compulsive symmetry to try to make the Psychic Adept the psionic duplicate of the DMG Adept.
I'll also add that this argument is taking irreplaceable time out of the Lost Cities project.
Well - is quality to be sacrificed in the face of quality? I know you want to get this project finished, but I also know you want it to be good and done right - so I do not see that the points and issues mentioned here are really hindering the project, only trying to ensure that the finished product is top-shelf :D
Run your calculations again. An adept can cast more spells than a PC can manifest powers, AND an adept gets a familliar for free at 2nd level.
If you add up the equivalent power points, you get 66 (or 69 if you're generous and count 0th level spells as 1st level powers). But I suppose the familiar is worth something.
We balanced the Psychic Adept against the Adept because it was convenient, but such balance was not even necessary. If our Psychic Adept were a hair stronger than the Adept, it's still well within the range for an NPC class. There's no reason other than compulsive symmetry to try to make the Psychic Adept the psionic duplicate of the DMG Adept.
I call BS on the compulsive symmetry stuff. It's a very nice argument when talking about complex, lovingly crafted races, classes and PrCs, etc. But this is an NPC class which should be weaker than any PC class, period. If you have a model than works, just convert and run with it. And if the new class is weak, well that's the price NPC pay for not being PCs.
BUT, like I said I don't want to make a big thing about this, so I'll let it go as is, unless others chime in with me.
I call BS on the compulsive symmetry stuff. It's a very nice argument when talking about complex, lovingly crafted races, classes and PrCs, etc. But this is an NPC class which should be weaker than any PC class, period.
If I understand you right...the PHB's PC classes have been designed to be symmetrical? If this is the case, then no, all the ramblings on the net about certain classes being better than others are not lunatic's yappings: WotC want designers working with or for them to understand this. The cleric, for example, is considered the best class in the game. If you want PC classes that are symmetrical, play d20 Modern and the like.
Should be weaker? It is. What PC class again is the psychic adept stronger than?
If I understand you right...the PHB's PC classes have been designed to be symmetrical? If this is the case, then no, all the ramblings on the net about certain classes being better than others are not lunatic's yappings: WotC want designers working with or for them to understand this. The cleric, for example, is considered the best class in the game. If you want PC classes that are symmetrical, play d20 Modern and the like.
Should be weaker? It is. What PC class again is the psychic adept stronger than?
You misunderstand, the adept and the psychic adept should be as identical as reasonably possible to minimize the necessity of testing; such is not compulsive symmetry, it's just making smart use of resources. If that results in a weak class, that's okay.
I'd put the Psychic Adept toe to toe with the Expert, as such well within the NPC class enveloppe developped by WotC.
I know you want to get this project finished, but I also know you want it to be good and done right - so I do not see that the points and issues mentioned here are really hindering the project, only trying to ensure that the finished product is top-shelf :D
All that's hindering the project is that I'm yakking about minutia on an NPC class when I could be moving maps, descriptions, and art that flesh out Kurn, Eldaarich, and the land in between. An NPC class description that doesn't even appear in my project, but that we adopted in order to satisfy the concerns of some on this board that we were using too many PC classes.
You misunderstand, the adept and the psychic adept should be as identical as reasonably possible to minimize the necessity of testing; such is not compulsive symmetry, it's just making smart use of resources. If that results in a weak class, that's okay.
That is true, and might even be releavant if we were designing this thing now. It might actually be relevant if you'd just suggested how we should write it to minimize testing resources. But you said that it was broken per se because it was supposedly stronger than the Adept, and that, CSK, is compulsive symmetry. Arguing for a rewrite now based on nothing but "save resources" seems like hypocrisy because the argument itself wastes irreplaceable resoures since we've been developing CAMPAIGN material based on it. If someone's got actual evidence to show that the class is broken, then bring it out.
"But this is an NPC class which should be weaker than any PC class, period."
It is weaker than any PC class, period. If it were stronger than the regular Adept class (and as I and others showed above, it isn't), it would still be weaker than any PC class. Are you seriously going to argue otherwise? Is anyone here going to tell me that they would choose a psychic adept over a wilder, a psychic warrior, or a psion?
Ral's balls, that's not even the test since the DMG even admits that a Player might want to play an aristocrat or an expert, that those classes do have certain advantages that make them mildly competitive with PC classes.
Well - is quality to be sacrificed in the face of quality?
Let's plug in the relevant information and think about that. Is it OK to rush and risk the quality of one NPC class to be sacrificed in order to increase quantity of actual campaign material?
That is true, and might even be releavant if we were designing this thing now. It might actually be relevant if you'd just suggested how we should write it to minimize testing resources. But you said that it was broken per se because it was supposedly stronger than the Adept, and that, CSK, is compulsive symmetry. Arguing for a rewrite now based on nothing but "save resources" seems like hypocrisy because the argument itself wastes irreplaceable resoures since we've been developing CAMPAIGN material based on it. If someone's got actual evidence to show that the class is broken, then bring it out.
I didn't say it was broken, and I did say I would leave it be if no one else had a problem. And I have to say, I don't consider a few minutes spent typing a message board comment a waste of "irreplacable resources."
"But this is an NPC class which should be weaker than any PC class, period."
It is weaker than any PC class, period. If it were stronger than the regular Adept class (and as I and others showed above, it isn't), it would still be weaker than any PC class. Are you seriously going to argue otherwise? Is anyone here going to tell me that they would choose a psychic adept over a wilder, a psychic warrior, or a psion?
Ral's balls, that's not even the test since the DMG even admits that a Player might want to play an aristocrat or an expert, that those classes do have certain advantages that make them mildly competitive with PC classes.
Pennarin seems to think this class is as good as an Expert which means it could be competitive. I thoroughly disagree with that idea however.
Let's plug in the relevant information and think about that. Is it OK to rush and risk the quality of one NPC class to be sacrificed in order to increase quantity of actual campaign material?
No. I would consider a class campaign material and just as worthy of attention, especially since it's part of the core, while this new material is not. Especially since the required attention is minimal.
But in the interest of not wasting any more time, I'll leave it be.
Pennarin seems to think this class is as good as an Expert which means it could be competitive. I thoroughly disagree with that idea however.
.
.
.
The Expert is an NPC class.......
Who cares if this class competes with the Expert? As long as it doesn't compete with a PC class then the Psychic Adept stays firmly in the camp of the NPC classes.
I'd play an Expert or Aristocrat, bu that's me.
I like my powerful NPCs to have levels mainly in PC classes, but also a few Expert levels, making them really good trackers, hunters, merchants, etc.
No. I would consider a class campaign material and just as worthy of attention, especially since it's part of the core,
Where are you pulling that from? Who says it is part of the core? It's not going into the core booklet; that's why we used an article. It's supplemental, like prestige classes, like LC.
Especially since the required attention is minimal.
Penn and I have given your arguments more attention than they deserved; we've refuted you point by point. You haven't paid us the same courtesy. You refuse to pay attention to the points about the Adept familliar, etc.. You don't deal with the fact that compulsively tweaking the rules holds up development of rules and projects, forces rewriting of characters, etc. Your reply to the point about the expert is just that you "disagree" and you imagine that others agree with you. No mention of why. If you come up with anything better than "it's not identical to the Adept" or "others agree with me," let us know.
Personally I'd rather not see huge numbers of generic NPCs automatically getting a Psicrystal, and that's what your compulsive symmetric solution would have required, to match the Adept familliar at 2nd level.
:D
The psicrystal is a pretty powerful little device, when you consider that with one extra feat at 3rd level you get a "spare" focus.
Another thing to consider is that an adept gets 0 level spells; there are no 0 level psionics.
As for the 6th level v. 5th level argument, the adept's "5th level" spells are fairly solid, and some are classed as 6th or 7th level spells for druids or wizards: baleful polymorph, break enchantment, commune, heal,
major creation, raise dead, true seeing, wall of stone.
But if the powers that be want to cap the PsyAdept at 5th powers, that's fine with me; the project does not statting high level NPC classes. I can't recall seeing fully statted 18th level adepts and commoners running around, although the DMG says they are out there somewhere. I just thought that a power as basic in concept as "Suspend Life," to basically put yourself in hibernation, should be within the grasp of an NPC class.