PDA

View Full Version : Why does everyone hate psionics?



Bandededed
2008-03-07, 08:32 PM
... Why does everyone seem to hate psionics? I've been trying to find a game for a week or two, and every one I read says something like "core only. no psionics." It's freaking depressing, especially when I just decided on a build of psionic monk that I like...

So, does anyone know?

horseboy
2008-03-07, 08:35 PM
Because they tell off colored jokes and have really rank body odor?

Nah, usually it's either they don't feel like having to mess with yet another system within a system or they've had bad experiences with prior editions.

Bag_of_Holding
2008-03-07, 08:39 PM
... Why does everyone seem to hate psionics? I've been trying to find a game for a week or two, and every one I read says something like "core only. no psionics." It's freaking depressing, especially when I just decided on a build of psionic monk that I like...

So, does anyone know?

Emphasis mine

Psionic rule isn't considered core. :smallwink:



p.s. Of course some people might argue that psionics are, in fact, included in SRD document, but it doesn't prove anything.

SurlySeraph
2008-03-07, 08:39 PM
Either because they don't want to bother to learn the system (like me) or because almost all the psionics material is terribly named. Or because psionics seems science-fiction-y, and doesn't seem to fit with normal high fantasy.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-07, 08:40 PM
Mostly because psionics, previous to 3.5, SUCKED. ASS. HARD. They we're either brokely overpowered, or brokely lousy, and the change from crappy psionics to the spectacular Expanded Psionics Handbook is usually seen as one of 3.5's top 3 greatest achievements over 3.

osyluth
2008-03-07, 08:45 PM
Either because they don't want to bother to learn the system (like me) or because almost all the psionics material is terribly named. Or because psionics seems science-fiction-y, and doesn't seem to fit with normal high fantasy.

Terribly named? That's not much of a change from most other D&D products. :smallwink:

Bandededed
2008-03-07, 08:46 PM
Of course some people might argue that psionics are, in fact, included in SRD document, but it doesn't prove anything.

You are correct, and the example I gave was bad. Psionics appear in the SRD because they are under the open content license. However, many of the same people running those games allow homebrew on a case-by-case basis.

They just don't allow psionics.

@ all: Thanks for the info though. I haven't been playing too long, so I never really got into psionics before the expanded psionics handbook.

Solo
2008-03-07, 08:47 PM
1) They don't like the flavor
2) Bad experiences with prior edition psionics (everything before 3.5 psionics was bad)
3) Not core. Many people prefer to keep things core for simplicity.
4) Don't want to learn a different system

Swordguy
2008-03-07, 08:49 PM
Nah, usually it's either they don't feel like having to mess with yet another system within a system or they've had bad experiences with prior editions.


Horseboy's got it right on. Now, the current system is much easier to pick up than older editions, to be fair.

Myself? No psi. I fall in the second category - horrid experiences with psionic PCs. I distinctly recall a PC in an AD&D game who could steal class abilities from other PCs via psionics. Ever seen a full caster with a fighter's THACO progression and a full set of thief abilities, plus extra psionic stuff? Game-breaking. Does this apply to the current rules? No - of course not. But I don't care. It's fully irrational and I admit that. But as long as I'm running games my choice stands: no psionics in my games.

Bag_of_Holding
2008-03-07, 08:50 PM
You are correct, and the example I gave was bad. Psionics appear in the SRD because they are under the open content license. However, many of the same people running those games allow homebrew on a case-by-case basis.

They just don't allow psionics.

@ all: Thanks for the info though. I haven't been playing too long, so I never really got into psionics before the expanded psionics handbook.




I just noticed what you put in for your 'Location'. That's creepy. :smalleek:

Collin152
2008-03-07, 08:50 PM
They ban psionics because they think it'll make them look cool.
If I were Dm'ing and I banned Psionics, itd probably be because I diddn't want to work the whole psionics system through my head when making the adventures, considering there'd be, like, exactly one psionic character to use the rules, because I certainly don't want to use any psionic NPCs.

Madmal
2008-03-07, 08:51 PM
i think Solo's 4th reason is the one that plays the most. I, as an example, have Magic of Incarnum, and i haven't bothered to understand it so far.

besides, i haven't found an acceptable either. Warforged and Archivists aren't classified as "Core", and i want to play one. :smalltongue:

TheThan
2008-03-07, 09:04 PM
I see a few other reasons why people don’t use psionics.

No healing, to my knowledge there is no healing powers, which means if you replaced the magic system with the psionics system, players will have no way to effectively heal themselves.

Setting specific reasons, if your playing in a world someone else created, and that person decided not to use psionics for whatever reason, then he’s probably not going to let you use them.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-07, 09:08 PM
Body adjustment. Second level power, heals 1d12, augmentable. The empathic transfers.

If you can think of it, psionics does it and is balanced.

Swooper
2008-03-07, 09:19 PM
What's this crap about 'not bothering to learn the system'? :smallannoyed:

1. A power costs power points to manifest (cast) equal to (power level x2)+1. So, odd numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7 etc. Some are augmentable for extra effects.
2. You can't use more PPs on a single power than your manifester level.
3. Psionic Focus. DC 20 concentration check, full action to get it, lets you take 15 on a concentration check and you lose it when you use certain psionic feats.

There, you now know how psionics work. That's honestly about it. Other than this, it's not much more than any other sourcebook you'd open. 'Not bothering to learn the system' is not a valid excuse for not allowing psionics, because if you can get your head around D&D 3.x to begin with, psionics is dead simple.

Xuincherguixe
2008-03-07, 09:24 PM
I think it's most likely because people feel psionics isn't "fantasy".

There's some other problems, but I think that's the big one.

I like them. They seem easier to manage than the traditional "memorize spells" way.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-07, 09:27 PM
What's this crap about 'not bothering to learn the system'? :smallannoyed:

1. A power costs power points to manifest (cast) equal to (power level x2)+1. So, odd numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7 etc. Some are augmentable for extra effects.
2. You can't use more PPs on a single power than your manifester level.
3. Psionic Focus. DC 20 concentration check, full action to get it, lets you take 15 on a concentration check and you lose it when you use certain psionic feats.

There, you now know how psionics work. That's honestly about it. Other than this, it's not much more than any other sourcebook you'd open. 'Not bothering to learn the system' is not a valid excuse for not allowing psionics, because if you can get your head around D&D 3.x to begin with, psionics is dead simple.Now just learn all of the powers, balance encounters that could now be one-shotted through a cool combination, and figure out the progression. It's easy from a player's viewpoint, but more is not better for a DM.

AmberVael
2008-03-07, 09:32 PM
What's this crap about 'not bothering to learn the system'? :smallannoyed:

1. A power costs power points to manifest (cast) equal to (power level x2)+1. So, odd numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7 etc. Some are augmentable for extra effects.
2. You can't use more PPs on a single power than your manifester level.
3. Psionic Focus. DC 20 concentration check, full action to get it, lets you take 15 on a concentration check and you lose it when you use certain psionic feats.

There, you now know how psionics work. That's honestly about it. Other than this, it's not much more than any other sourcebook you'd open. 'Not bothering to learn the system' is not a valid excuse for not allowing psionics, because if you can get your head around D&D 3.x to begin with, psionics is dead simple.
It's not that simple! I mean really, I can name a ton of examples of how it's different!
First and foremost.. um...
Well, there's...
Um...
...
Nevermind. :smallwink:


More seriously- yes, psionics really is simple. It's simpler than Tome of Battle, and I don't see people going crazy over not wanting to learn ToB's rules.
So if that's your reason, I'd guess that you haven't learned the grapple rules either. :smalltongue:

^: Psionics = more balanced wizardry. I can't think of any differences between magic spells and psionic powers large enough to actually change the way an entire encounter goes.

Swooper
2008-03-07, 09:33 PM
Now just learn all of the powers, balance encounters that could now be one-shotted through a cool combination, and figure out the progression. It's easy from a player's viewpoint, but more is not better for a DM.
I don't see how that's harder than learning the new spells/monsters/whatever from ANY splatbook.

Farmer42
2008-03-07, 09:33 PM
If you one shot an encounter with psionics, the DM shouldn't worry about balance. If they one shot the encounter, they're screwed for the next one. It isn't unfair to the player if they want to nova an encounter, they'll be useless for the rest of the day.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-03-07, 09:39 PM
Bad experiences in the past. Another rule system that is poorly supported. Partly because Psionics are better balanced and not as broken and abuseable as the magic system in game so less incentive to learn the system.

A nice way to introduce them into a game might be the Psychic Rogue variant at Wizard's.

Swordguy
2008-03-07, 09:40 PM
I don't see how that's harder than learning the new spells/monsters/whatever from ANY splatbook.

And I don't allow splatbooks or content thereof until I've had a chance to fully acquaint myself with it - regardless of how long that takes. Psionics goes to the back of the line because without it, there are no psionicists - while whenever a book comes out for a core class there's an immediate need for it.

Chronos
2008-03-07, 09:54 PM
They we're either brokely overpowered, or brokely lousyOr both at once. A psionicist in 2nd edition could get Disintegrate at 3rd level... Or at least, he could, if it were actually possible to learn any psychokinesis powers at all. See, there were two kinds of powers, Sciences (greater powers), and Devotions (lesser powers), and in any given discipline, you had to know more Devotions than Sciences. Well, the Telekinesis power was a science, and there was only one devotion in the entire discipline that didn't have Telekinesis as a prerequisite. "I think I'll learn Telekinesis. No, wait, I can't, since I'd need to have two devotions first. OK, then, I'll learn another devotion. No, wait, I can't, since I don't have Telekinesis."

But if you could actually figure out some way to use the system at all, yeah, Disintegrate on a 3rd-level character. Yeah, that's balanced.

Collin152
2008-03-07, 10:02 PM
More seriously- yes, psionics really is simple. It's simpler than Tome of Battle, and I don't see people going crazy over not wanting to learn ToB's rules.
So if that's your reason, I'd guess that you haven't learned the grapple rules either. :smalltongue:


Hey, don't get me started now, I don't like Tome of Battle either, despite it's gap-leveling improvements.
And still, it's a whole new set of abilities to keep in mind when designing encounters.
Also, I don't like a large number of the powers.
Also, the grapple rules are needlessly complex anyways, and I propose we seperate them from core and make a supplemental book just for grappling.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-07, 10:10 PM
I distinctly recall a PC in an AD&D game who could steal class abilities from other PCs via psionics. Ever seen a full caster with a fighter's THACO progression and a full set of thief abilities, plus extra psionic stuff?
*cough*ThrallherdWithFusionPower*cough*

Helios Sunshard
2008-03-07, 10:18 PM
A little from "dont want to bother learning the system" and "dont like the flavor".

It just feels weird to me, i prefer magic as the prevalent force in the universe and psionics seems too futuristic to me.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-07, 10:29 PM
They ban psionics because they think it'll make them look cool.
If I were Dm'ing and I banned Psionics, itd probably be because I diddn't want to work the whole psionics system through my head when making the adventures, considering there'd be, like, exactly one psionic character to use the rules, because I certainly don't want to use any psionic NPCs.

That... or before 3.5 Psionics was broken one way or another (as others have said). Or, the major reason, it steps on magic's toes. Most of my players aren't going to want to play a psionic character, because they didn't all buy the book or want to read the SRD section, and most do want to play some magical character or other (even if it's just a duskblade). The two systems tend to duplicate abilities and that causes versimiltude problems so having both in one game is, frankly, more trouble than it's worth.

Xuincherguixe
2008-03-07, 10:31 PM
See, I don't think that it is too futuristic. Traditionally, psionics has been mostly in high science settings, but it doesn't have to be.

Magic and Psionics don't even have to be different things. I mean, they seem pretty similar to me.

horseboy
2008-03-07, 10:35 PM
Magic and Psionics don't even have to be different things. I mean, they seem pretty similar to me.You know how many YEARS of Rolemaster I went through before I realized the realm of mentalism was their version of psionics? :smallredface:

Rutee
2008-03-07, 10:40 PM
Magic and Psionics don't even have to be different things. I mean, they seem pretty similar to me.

Seconded. I just don't draw needless distinctions, I s'pose.

FlyMolo
2008-03-07, 10:46 PM
Personally, I love psionics. They just rock.

I'd replace all of the full casters with "magic point" systems if I could.

They're balanced, fun, and everyone loves the idea of a bald guy with tattoos killing things with his mind.

Regular DnD is kind of like a stew. There's meaty fighters, spicy rogues, acidic wizards and buttery clerics.

Every so often, you need an ice cold glass of water. That's psionics.

And that unidentified Korean vegetable on the side of your plate is Magic of Incarnum. And ToB is olives. You either like em or hate em.

wadledo
2008-03-07, 10:47 PM
I actually heartily approve of Psionics, and am more likely to choose those characters for any games I DM.

I've never actually gotten a game off the ground, but meh.:smallsigh:

AslanCross
2008-03-07, 10:50 PM
I don't hate it. I banned it from my first campaign, but upon reading the books it just seemed like a different flavor of magic to me. It's really not too different. I allowed it when I ran an Eberron adventure, and it worked out pretty well.

Really, there may be fluff reasons for a DM to ban psionics, but I find that it's less cheesy than some things Wizards can do.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-07, 10:55 PM
I think the reasons are fivefold.

1) It is a completely different magic system, but psions have as many powers as wizards do (core, anyway). This means that I have to learn an entire new set of spells, which are already enormous in number, specifically so I can understand what your character is capable of. With a Warblade, at least they only have a dozen or so powers, and even a swordsage’s list of powers fits on a double sided page. Not so much with psionic powers.
2) Psionics is lamer than magic. A lot of people will argue with me on this point, but what psionics really is, all it really is, is magic without all the cool trappings of magic. It doesn’t have the awesome hand gestures, the strange glyphs, the indecipherable spellbooks, or the other awesome, flashy stuff wizards have, but it works the same as spells do and often has very similar effects. Yes, it doesn’t work exactly the same, but from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know much about them it seems pretty similar in what the end effects are. Psionics is magic for the SF settings where magic is inappropriate but they still want magical effects. Its basically applied plebonium, but lamer applied plebonium.
3) Psionics is not distinct enough from magic. Part of 2 but also important enough to mention on its own.
4) Full casters are bad enough, they don’t want any more of them.
5) Psionics and magic don’t mix well; I’ve never read a good fantasy novel with psionics in it, and especially not one with psionics AND magic in it.

wadledo
2008-03-07, 11:02 PM
1) Most of them are similar if not identical, and nobody's going to use them all.
2) You can rip a mans brain right out of his skull with your mind.
If that's not awesome, I don't know what is.
3) ^^^^^^
4) Oh, yes, soooo terrifying that you've got a full caster who you know can't do something game breakingly strong #+Mod per day.
5) Then you must not have read enough fantasy.

FlyMolo
2008-03-07, 11:06 PM
I think the reasons are fivefold.

1) It is a completely different magic system, but psions have as many powers as wizards do (core, anyway). This means that I have to learn an entire new set of spells, which are already enormous in number, specifically so I can understand what your character is capable of. With a Warblade, at least they only have a dozen or so powers, and even a swordsage’s list of powers fits on a double sided page. Not so much with psionic powers.
2) Psionics is lamer than magic. A lot of people will argue with me on this point, but what psionics really is, all it really is, is magic without all the cool trappings of magic. It doesn’t have the awesome hand gestures, the strange glyphs, the indecipherable spellbooks, or the other awesome, flashy stuff wizards have, but it works the same as spells do and often has very similar effects. Yes, it doesn’t work exactly the same, but from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know much about them it seems pretty similar in what the end effects are. Psionics is magic for the SF settings where magic is inappropriate but they still want magical effects. Its basically applied plebonium, but lamer applied plebonium.
3) Psionics is not distinct enough from magic. Part of 2 but also important enough to mention on its own.
4) Full casters are bad enough, they don’t want any more of them.
5) Psionics and magic don’t mix well; I’ve never read a good fantasy novel with psionics in it, and especially not one with psionics AND magic in it.

1) Why learn anything if it's too hard? And a Psion can only learn a double handful of powers. By 20th level, you're looking at 20-odd powers. I'm sure you can manage.
2) Up the Walls, Speed of Thought. Your argument loses to my argument. Psionics are not magic. They crunch similarly, but they don't have to minus the cool stuff. And a Psion does whatever a wizard does, but without the flashy crutch. How is that less cool? In any case, deck your Psion out with Ioun stones and psionic tattoos, and tell me that's not awesome.
3) Up the Walls, other psionic feats.
4) Except, oddly, psionics are balanced. Full casters aren't. You're throwing the baby who can bend reality to his will without using his hands out with the broken bathwater, to extend a metaphor.
5) Go write one, then. Or I'll do it. Come back in 2 years. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-07, 11:17 PM
1) Most of them are similar if not identical, and nobody's going to use them all.

No, but that's not the issue. First off, it is much harder for the DM to really know what you can do, but second, and perhaps more importantly, if I as a DM don't know the psionicist rules, I as a DM don't know how broken they are. Some of them seem quite powerful, but even worse are the actually broken ones (yes, a lot if not most of them are replicating broken wizard spells) and that's always a problem.


2) You can rip a mans brain right out of his skull with your mind.

You can do the same with magic, which leads to corellary 3... which you can't answer.

Fundamentally 2 is related to 3 in an integral way; magic is cooler than psionics, and psionics, on a very fundamental level, IS magic. Thus, because fantasy settings use the Rule of Cool rather than the Rule of Plausible, you should always opt for the cooler power set. Therefore, psionics are unnecessary because magic is cooler and basically the same thing.


4) Oh, yes, soooo terrifying that you've got a full caster who you know can't do something game breakingly strong #+Mod per day.

Oh come now, Polymorph is a psionic power.


5) Then you must not have read enough fantasy.

Citation needed.

I've read far, far more fantasy than you most likely have.


2) Up the Walls, Speed of Thought. Your argument loses to my argument. Psionics are not magic. They crunch similarly, but they don't have to minus the cool stuff. And a Psion does whatever a wizard does, but without the flashy crutch. How is that less cool? In any case, deck your Psion out with Ioun stones and psionic tattoos, and tell me that's not awesome.

Those are magical powers.


3) Up the Walls, other psionic feats.

That is magic. There is nothing which distinguishes psionics from magic. Psionics IS magic. There's no difference between the two. That's the problem.

I'm not talking crunch, though that doesn't help. I'm saying that there is no difference between them in terms of what they actually are.


5) Go write one, then. Or I'll do it. Come back in 2 years. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.

Ah, but this is a flawed argument. I gave a very good reason why they don't occur together - #3.

wadledo
2008-03-07, 11:24 PM
I've read far, far more fantasy than you most likely have.

.......:smallconfused: I own a bookstore.

Wait, so you just don't like the fact that psionic's are similar to magic?
But, with psionic's your grandmother most likely did not have relations with that dragon.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-07, 11:27 PM
You obviously haven't read the Dark Sun novels.

Collin152
2008-03-07, 11:28 PM
.......:smallconfused: I own a bookstore.

Damn, why diddn't I think of that?

Roderick_BR
2008-03-07, 11:44 PM
I doubt people are just lazy to learn a new set of rules. Lots of people do it all the time. If some out there have the patience to swallow the whole ToB, and learn every new type of caster (warlock, truenamer, incarnun, whatever), learning psyonics shouldn't be easy.

The problem is fitting the fluff. People feels that psyonics it too sci-fi, in the same way that many are happy that monks won't be a core class in the PHB1 for 4th edition, and think ToB is "too anime" to be used in a D&D game. It doesn't mix well with the classical medieval fantasy setting.

Peregrine
2008-03-08, 12:15 AM
1) They don't like the flavor
2) Bad experiences with prior edition psionics (everything before 3.5 psionics was bad)
3) Not core. Many people prefer to keep things core for simplicity.
4) Don't want to learn a different system

I think Solo nailed it with this. Other people have said these things, but this just puts it all together. Anything not here that people have said has either been demonstrably wrong, has been "because my DM doesn't allow it (for one of those reasons)", or comes under 5) "I just don't like it" (which may or may not be part of #1 in the end).

In my case, well, I like the psionics system. It looks like a great #2 and #3 don't apply to me. I want to use it. But a little bit of #4 and a whole big lot of #1 is keeping me from wholeheartedly endorsing it. I still sometimes find a spell (a core spell) that I somehow had missed before, or forgotten about. Learning the power list in sufficient detail to be able to run psionic NPCs and to make sure psionic PCs are doing it right is a challenge.

But it's the flavour that most gets me. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the psionics fluff is a hodge-podge of quasi-scientific psychiatric terms, Ghostbusters sci-fi ectoplasm, Matrix-like physics-bending manoeuvres, and a New-Age crystal fetish. Reflavouring it to fit a campaign world of my own preferred style would be possible, but the biggest hurdle, again, is all the powers -- you'd have to rename a whole lot of them, and confuse your players in the process.


2) Psionics is lamer than magic.

This is pure opinion, and one best expressed in-game rather than out-of-game. Have your wizard tell the party psion that he's not cool enough. And the psion will tell you that all your flash components are poncey and gimmicky. :smallsmile:


3) Psionics is not distinct enough from magic. Part of 2 but also important enough to mention on its own.
...
5) Psionics and magic don’t mix well; I’ve never read a good fantasy novel with psionics in it, and especially not one with psionics AND magic in it.

How do you know? You barely finished saying that the two aren't distinct enough. You seem to be making an a priori assumption that anything called magic (or that looks magical without expressly being called "psionics" or the like) is equivalent to DnD magic, not DnD psionics. But psionics models many fantasy worlds' magic systems as well or better than Vancian spellcasting. Honestly, most are somewhere in the middle.

Personally, the divide between psionics and magic is an issue for me, and the more I can narrow that gap, the better. I want them to be two approaches to the same thing, with fuzzy boundaries. A line-in-the-sand approach breaks my suspension of disbelief -- it makes it too obvious that psionics is a supplement, outside the more interwoven core rules. (That's where things like the scientific and sci-fi flavour really irks me. It just doesn't seem to belong.)

Xuincherguixe
2008-03-08, 12:33 AM
I doubt people are just lazy to learn a new set of rules. Lots of people do it all the time. If some out there have the patience to swallow the whole ToB, and learn every new type of caster (warlock, truenamer, incarnun, whatever), learning psyonics shouldn't be easy.

The problem is fitting the fluff. People feels that psyonics it too sci-fi, in the same way that many are happy that monks won't be a core class in the PHB1 for 4th edition, and think ToB is "too anime" to be used in a D&D game. It doesn't mix well with the classical medieval fantasy setting.

Now I want to run a Psionic Campaign, with ToB classes. I'd say monks too, but that's what the ToB classes are supposed to replace.

Even better, would be to set it as Medieval Europe. Sort of. But hey, it's not like any of the other classes were like that in Medieval Europe anyways.


Also, what if we don't necessarily want a medieval setting? And if we did, there's a lot more than monks that need to go. There's a real blend of mythology. It just might not be apparent since because everything else is copying the same stuff from D&D.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 12:57 AM
....... I own a bookstore.

You might have me beat then :< I only own lots and lots and lots of books, and read a couple novels a month; it used to be more, but the internet eats up my time a lot more these days.


Wait, so you just don't like the fact that psionic's are similar to magic?

Its not so much "similar to" as "the same as", except with different (and less, and less cool) trappings.


But, with psionic's your grandmother most likely did not have relations with that dragon.

You say that like it is a bad thing.


I doubt people are just lazy to learn a new set of rules. Lots of people do it all the time. If some out there have the patience to swallow the whole ToB, and learn every new type of caster (warlock, truenamer, incarnun, whatever), learning psyonics shouldn't be easy.

But I have better things to do than learn a set of rules which don't interest me. This isn't to say I haven't read through the entire book, sadly; I did because I ran out of D&D books to read at one point. But I never really bothered to read much from it again, as psionics really don't interest me.


How do you know? You barely finished saying that the two aren't distinct enough. You seem to be making an a priori assumption that anything called magic (or that looks magical without expressly being called "psionics" or the like) is equivalent to DnD magic, not DnD psionics. But psionics models many fantasy worlds' magic systems as well or better than Vancian spellcasting. Honestly, most are somewhere in the middle.

The problem is not system but what it IS. Magic IS something, as is psionics, and on a very fundamental level they're one and the same.

And arguing "Well, the psionics system more closely mirrors most systems' casting" is silly; this is completely irrelevant. The idea of such power pools is adopted from magic in the first place, and really, them being the same thing, it doesn't really matter. The idea of having a pool of magic is very common in fantasy; D&D psionics adopted it to divorce it from the typical vancian system of D&D, and partially because it IS common and wasn't done yet in the system.

Xuincherguixe
2008-03-08, 01:25 AM
Books, hand gestures, speaking words. Those aren't cool.
It's how these are expressed that make it cool.

Neither Magic or Psionics has enough as written to make it awesome.

But you know, I can see someone making scary faces, screaming, or pointing threateningly when using Psionics than magic. Psionics seems to have more emotional content.

CockroachTeaParty
2008-03-08, 02:15 AM
Books, hand gestures, speaking words. Those aren't cool.
It's how these are expressed that make it cool.

Neither Magic or Psionics has enough as written to make it awesome.

But you know, I can see someone making scary faces, screaming, or pointing threateningly when using Psionics than magic. Psionics seems to have more emotional content.

Have you ever read Akira? Now them's psionics!

Not everyone hates psionics. I'm a huge fan. It was my first non-core system love affair, and the XPH remains one of the best 3.5 books ever (it was the first 3.5 book I bought, and inspired me to purchase the rest of 3.5 core).

There's little point in arguing with people that don't like the flavor. Sometimes, you just have to be patient if you want to join a decent game. Lord know's I'm tired of "Core only" games. I've been itching to try my hand at a Shadowcaster for months now.

Oddly enough, for me psionics is practically core, and I actually start to get as bored with them as I do with the core casting classes. I'm one of those odd people that thirsts to try new systems. I'm yet to give Incarnum a Shot, or a full blown Tome of Magic game.

Ascension
2008-03-08, 02:24 AM
I've barely read any of the psionic rules, primarily because in all the art I've seen the D&D psychics seem to be heavily tattooed. I know that's a petty excuse, and it's just fluff and all, but they just look wrong to me. It's not very inviting.

EDIT: Now Akira, yes! That's the sort of psionics I'd like to see. Too bad we don't have any orbital satellite lasers in this campaign...

SofS
2008-03-08, 02:26 AM
Sometimes, it's not the effort of reading a book that stops someone. I've read most of the Expanded Psionics Handbook - and the Tome of Battle, for that matter - but I'll probably never run a game that uses the systems from either of them. Perhaps I can illustrate this with a bit of real life.

See, I have this friend. D&D is probably his favourite system. He has this habit, however, that he has had for as long as I have played with him in any system, and the habit boils down to constantly trying to play something that is very different from the other characters. A couple of years ago, he tried hard to play a psionic class in every game, which was tough due to how no one else liked the system and would rarely go for it. When I ran one and said "no psionics", he played a Savage Species-style rakshasa. Now he tries to play a Tome of Battle character in every game (and encounters the same problem).

What I'm trying to say here is that my friend has run me through the gamut of D&D splatbooks and that I've always found including them an utter pain. Sure, I could read a book and let him use the classes from it. Then I'd run into problems from all the character optimization prodigies on boards showing him precisely how to annoy everybody playing. I could then counter that with board research and nip problems in the bud (and as a side note, I don't have anything against character optimization; I simply don't like one person at the table monopolizing the game with combinations that we'll all then have to look up, debate, and work into the now-disrupted session), but that would frankly be too much mental energy to spend on something like that when it could be spent bettering my planning or going outside or anything other than doing homework for a hobby.

Not only that, there's the fact that if a player in one of my games plays a psionicist, he or she will probably be the only psychic that he or she ever meets. This goes double for ToB characters. It's just irritating to add things to a campaign that don't fit and change the feel. One person wants to play a swordsage, and all of a sudden I have to start wondering if he's the only one or if there's a temple somewhere where he learned his Demon Kung Fu and if there should be more of them about (and if you think that's unfair, it's also my reasoning behind avoiding monks when I can. I'm just not sure where all these monasteries are supposed to be and why everyone that comes out of them has the same basic list of weird magic tricks).

All previous babbling on my part aside, I actually rather like the psionic feats. I'm thinking of including them without including any psionic classes and maybe expanding a bit on them. It'd make them more like how I like psychic powers in medievalish fantasy: strange and fascinating knacks that one picks up through inscrutable means, rather than a whole system of laser-beam-emitting powers from fellows carrying enormous swords made of quartz for some reason. If magic and psionics were more like a feat-based system rather than a class-based system (as I gather Blue Rose and such have it), D&D might be a little more flexible and amiably quirky than it is.

drengnikrafe
2008-03-08, 02:30 AM
I hate psionics, but I don't have a reason for it. But, I do have an anecdote.

So I was getting a new player to join one a new campaign that I'm starting, and he decides "I want to be a psion!" Honestly, at this point, I don't know anything about psionics beyond 2nd level, really. And, worse yet, he's the kind of guy who'll ask a thousand questions, and get really really mad at you if you say "Make a Knowledge Check to see if you know," so I have to also prepare a history of psionics, just to be safe. 1 page into the document for the history of psionics in the world, I, for no appearant reason, can't take it anymore. The story is so incredibly dull and wrong-feeling that I just have to stop, and I haven't picked it back up since.

Maxymiuk
2008-03-08, 02:45 AM
It's just irritating to add things to a campaign that don't fit and change the feel.

QFT.

If I ever decide to include Incarnum, ToB, XPH, or any other material that goes beyond the core (here core meaning mechanical congruency with the system as presented in the DMG and PHB), it's going to be because the campaign concept will involve telepaths or crazy kung fu artists, not because I'm going to tack them on to appease one or two players.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-08, 02:53 AM
This is why Eberron is better than the realms ;p

Zincorium
2008-03-08, 03:18 AM
I like psionics, the concept of changing the world by first changing yourself, and I allow them freely in any game I DM that doesn't specifically prohibit them (with one exception, for which I' m searching for a solution).

Much of the problem (and it's somewhat unavoidable) is that psionics, due to both it's actual respect for physics and it's basics in supposedly real people, contains a degree of modern thought which is a break in the usual medieval simulation.

In addition, it does not go far beyond magic in directions that are comfortable to go, mind control and it's ilk that psionics do well are kind of squicky for many groups. Getting into the real consequences of inhabitating and messing with people's minds requires a truly mature group, it's a violation of basic humanity in many people's minds.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-08, 03:50 AM
I think it's most likely because people feel psionics isn't "fantasy".

Precisely. The flavor is off, way off.

And, there are too many powers that are effectively a copy/paste job of an equivalent wizard spell, and there's really no reason why D&D would need Yet Another Magic System.

Which is also why I wouldn't allow Tome of Magic stuff unless I replaced the entire wizard system with one of those. But at least those have flavor.

Peregrine
2008-03-08, 04:52 AM
And arguing "Well, the psionics system more closely mirrors most systems' casting" is silly; this is completely irrelevant. The idea of such power pools is adopted from magic in the first place, and really, them being the same thing, it doesn't really matter. The idea of having a pool of magic is very common in fantasy; D&D psionics adopted it to divorce it from the typical vancian system of D&D, and partially because it IS common and wasn't done yet in the system.

So... it seems to follow from what you're saying that psionics is just generic, bland, "default" magic; it's the common sort of fantasy fiction magic, as distinct from Vancian magic, which is pretty much only found in Jack Vance and D&D, and which you find cooler than the sort of generic magic that psionics models. Essentially, if I'm understanding you right, when you look at "magic and psionics" you see "Vancian magic and other magic" and prefer the trappings of the former.

Which is all well and good, and a matter of opinion, except that it also blows apart your claim that no fantasy stories use psionics. :smallsmile:

More seriously, though, you asked for citations of counterexamples. Going on what psionics "should" mean, rather than what D&D models it as, this means you want fantasy fiction where the "magic" is rooted in the mental powers of its practitioners rather than manipulating any external source. Let me get the ball rolling: The Belgariad and subsequent books, by David Eddings. "The Will and the Word" is pretty much pure mental effort; the "Word" is not a magic word, it's just that the act of speaking releases the person's will to act on the world around them.

Kioran
2008-03-08, 05:22 AM
Hmmm - I think it´s rather weird if one has both Psionics and Magic in the game world, since both take from the same reservoir of tropes. And for me, it´s mostly Magic first and Psionics get the boot.

Now I know psionics are much better balanced for blasting, do an adequate job of some other things and leave out some of the most broken spell/powers. But what always pissed me off, to no end, is the fact that of all the XPH classes, the only one which isn´t totally egoistic is the Egoist.......
Psions are no team players. They do not buff someone else, they just do it all by themselves. This, coupled with their capability to go nova, means it´s more often the "watch-incredible-pwnage-unfold-once-and-lug-around-the-sack-of-meat-for-the-rest-of-the-day-time". Which sucks. Which is why I don´t like psionics all that much.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-08, 05:25 AM
this means you want fantasy fiction where the "magic" is rooted in the mental powers of its practitioners rather than manipulating any external source.

Except for one thing: they made up the division of "magic is an external source / psionic is internal" only as an exceedingly thin justification of why people would want to use psionics in their games.

And that's really the point. Most DMs, and indeed most fantasy authors, entirely fail to see why there should be more kinds or systems of magic in their world. Heck, most fantasy authors don't even have "divine" magic. If D&D has nearly a dozen, it should come as no surprise that most people don't actually want that kind of complexity, or want to have to justify that separation in their world building.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 05:27 AM
This is pure opinion, and one best expressed in-game rather than out-of-game. Have your wizard tell the party psion that he's not cool enough. And the psion will tell you that all your flash components are poncey and gimmicky.

Actually, this flashiness is EXACTLY why magic isn't in sci-fi - sci-fi tries to stay believable, and flashy incantations and all the various trappings of wizardry are obviously superstitious, unscientific nonsense. However, people LOVe magic (for whatever reason) so in the future, magic is called psionics and lacks all of the cool trappings, but doesn't stop people from shooting fireballs or killing people with their magic - er, I mean mind.

In places where flashiness is allowed, magic is all over the place and psionics takes a back seat. That's why fantasy has magic, and sci-fi has psionics, fundamentally; otherwise they do all the same things and more or less complete the same story goals.


Much of the problem (and it's somewhat unavoidable) is that psionics, due to both it's actual respect for physics and it's basics in supposedly real people, contains a degree of modern thought which is a break in the usual medieval simulation.

Please don't make the mistake of saying something like "respect for physics" and "basis in supposedly real people". The reason people use the term psionics is because everyone knows magic isn't real, and if you said you knew how to do magic, people would either make fun of you or think you meant like David Copperfield.

Of course, in reality all so-called "psychics" in real life ARE stage magicians, and often bad ones at that. But that's beside the point.

Psionics in fiction (and the claims of psionic abilities in reality) have no respect whatsoever for the laws of physics. As I said, there's no difference between psionics and magic, and that includes logical sense. Indeed, one could argue that magic is MORE sensible, as at least it has an external power source. Sometimes.


Which is also why I wouldn't allow Tome of Magic stuff unless I replaced the entire wizard system with one of those. But at least those have flavor.

I've considered completely removing all full caster classes from my next campaign if I ever run another 3.5 campaign; Wizard, Sorcerer, Clerics, Druids, Archivists, Artificers (not that I've ever allowed either of the last two), Psionicists, and all the other crazy caster classes will be gone. Bards will obviously survive, and Adepts as well, but is anyone going to play either of those?

But I doubt I'll ever run another 3.5 campaign; I'm switching over to 4e on June 6th and never looking back. Okay, probably not; I'll probably switch after that point, when the campaign I'm running wraps up, but meh.


So... it seems to follow from what you're saying that psionics is just generic, bland, "default" magic; it's the common sort of fantasy fiction magic, as distinct from Vancian magic, which is pretty much only found in Jack Vance and D&D, and which you find cooler than the sort of generic magic that psionics models. Essentially, if I'm understanding you right, when you look at "magic and psionics" you see "Vancian magic and other magic" and prefer the trappings of the former.

Tsk. That's not what I meant at all, and I'm sorry that's what you're thinking.

What distinguishes fantasy from psionics, and perhaps this is what a lot of people don't understand, is twofold.

First off, magic admits it is what it is. It isn't meant to be realistic. Its meant to be cool. Magic is perhaps the quintessential application of the Rule of Cool.

Psionics, conversely, tries very hard to pretend it makes sense. It makes absolutely no more sense than magic does, but it TRIES. Magic takes refuge in audacity; it makes up obviously fictional reasons for its existance, whereas psionics tries to present itself as plausible mental powers (and falls flat).

The second distinguishing feature of magic is its trappings. Spellbooks, staves, and wands are very common trappings of magic. Gestures, arcane symbols, and similar things also are very common. These do not define magic though in the same way other things do. Its really in the psyche.

Psions are all over the place. Lots are empathetic, but that's not a defining trait, and if you look at stuff like Akira you see it isn't the case at all.

Conversely, magic always has the mysterious order of obsfucation. While magicians and wizards are obvious examples, you look at the Aes Sedai of the Wheel of Time, the maegi and the red priestess of A Song Of Ice and Fire, Gandalf the Gray, the wizards from Harry Potter, and various other groups of magic-users from stories. Its all about the secret knowledge, the hidden stuff, and the stuff which man was not meant to know, not really. There is always the aura of mystery inherent to it; even Xanth follows this trope (heck, it has a guy who pretty much exemplifies it), and Xanth is quite silly.

Psionics simply lacks the style and coherency, and in fact, tends to be the opposite - psions are not wizards who miser their knowledge, but people who dispense hard to understand wisdom (or simply hard to use wisdom, such as "Think about the spoon bending") quite freely.


And that's really the point. Most DMs, and indeed most fantasy authors, entirely fail to see why there should be more kinds or systems of magic in their world. Heck, most fantasy authors don't even have "divine" magic. If D&D has nearly a dozen, it should come as no surprise that most people don't actually want that kind of complexity, or want to have to justify that separation in their world building.

Yeah, most fantasy novels just have two, and they're generally not really "different" in the sense of arcane versus divine, but more good versus evil (or yin vs yang, in some cases) or inner vs outer (The Glass Dragon); almost invariably, combining the two types of magic is far stronger than just using one or the other. The Glass Dragon is one of the rare cases where the types of magic ARE very distinct; in most such dualities, you're looking at two opposite faces of the same coin, but they're quite different in there, in fluff if not quite so much in application.

Closet_Skeleton
2008-03-08, 07:58 AM
I think it's most likely because people feel psionics isn't "fantasy".

Yeah, because people use psionics all the time in real life.

Psionics is completly fantastical.


And, there are too many powers that are effectively a copy/paste job of an equivalent wizard spell, and there's really no reason why D&D would need Yet Another Magic System.

Apart from it's standard magic system being completely broken and often illogical.

KIDS
2008-03-08, 08:50 AM
Oh I know Bandededed, it's a matter of habit. Had they been printed in core, and normal magic in a supplement, everyone would be spitting on Wizard class and Glitterdust now.

For myself, I love psionics because they feel much more magical than the normal system, while at the same time being much more streamlined, easier to use and less abuseable. And of course, I can't convince anyone to allow them, because I bump into arguments like "they were imba in 2E" :(

PaladinFreak
2008-03-08, 09:19 AM
2) Psionics is lamer than magic. A lot of people will argue with me on this point, but what psionics really is, all it really is, is magic without all the cool trappings of magic. It doesn’t have the awesome hand gestures, the strange glyphs, the indecipherable spellbooks, or the other awesome, flashy stuff wizards have, but it works the same as spells do and often has very similar effects. Yes, it doesn’t work exactly the same, but from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know much about them it seems pretty similar in what the end effects are. Psionics is magic for the SF settings where magic is inappropriate but they still want magical effects. Its basically applied plebonium, but lamer applied plebonium.


Ok, this I don't understand.

"The tatooed man gives you a terrifying glare, and as you watch, his eyes begin to glow, and fire explodes all around you."

I can't see how that's not cool.

Erom
2008-03-08, 10:04 AM
I just don't like having to weave in _another_ power source into my world. If a player wants to be psionic, suddenly there have to be other psionics in the world, and that's just an unnecessary complication.

But my group often plays super simple games to allow for rapid world creation and fast campaign playing (a campaign is typically 5-6 sessions for us, 3 level ups or so, usually from L3-L6 or something in that range) so we're sort of a special case.

We've even started playing "Mini-Core" where players are restricted to Elven/Human/Dwarven and Fighter/Thief/Cleric/Sorceror (Sometimes + Paladin or + Druid, but rarely both) only.

togapika
2008-03-08, 10:25 AM
I don't care to learn the system either, but my main irrational fear transferred from IRL is this:
I don't want someone inside my head.
I know magic has mind reading spells and domination and such, but it feels so much different.

Drascin
2008-03-08, 10:32 AM
Well, I don't hate them. I actually prefer them to the concept of usual D&D magic, which I find bothersome in system and often downright funny in its trappings (seriously, a mini TV-set for the component of a scrying? :smalltongue:). And my own personal campaign world happens to have a real high percentage of beings with psionic potential (along with a real abundance of reptilian races. Mammals are suckers :smallwink:). But most people don't see them as "magic from within", but "Sci-fi pastiche" and so dislike them. To that, add that a lot of DMs have horrible, horrible experiences with older editions of psionics, and you can see why my opinion is the minority

Talya
2008-03-08, 10:49 AM
1. I don't like yet another system within a system. Furthermore, i'm not really fond of "power point" style magic/psionic systems...even though flavorwise that crunch does fit the style of psionics.

2. I don't like that WotC felt the need to limit some magic because it encroached on what they perceived as the domain of psionics. Telekinesis is a great example...it's neutered as a spell in 3.x thanks to psionics. Also note the dearth of mind-reading abilities in arcane magic now. There are more examples. Magic should be capable of anything. That's what makes it magic. Magic is the primal force that built/operates the universe...and anyone can learn, given enough time and study...or rare natural talent...to learn to tap into it. Such ability should be extremely difficult and dangerous to learn, but ultimately godlike once mastered, as you are not limited in the amount of magical power you can channel. There's a whole infiniteuniverse full of it, and all of it can be harnessed by any one person...the only limit is their own skill at weilding it. Psionics represent personal energy, the power of the mind of the weilder. It is inherently limited in the strength of that one person's mind. The potential power needs to be much lower as well.

3. Psionic flavor is fantasy enough for me (not just sci-fi...heh...psi-fi?), but it needs to be limited to specific psionic races. Humans should not be among those races. While i'm not averse to a rare psionic human, it's an inborn natural ability. 99.99999% of humans don't have it. If certain races ALL have it (Ilithids, Elan, Thri-keen, etc.), I'm okay with that from a flavor perspective (apart from the issues above), but I generally don't like non-psionic races learning it.


4. I do not like the psionic classes...not a single full BAB melee type.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 11:05 AM
1. I don't like yet another system within a system. Furthermore, i'm not really fond of "power point" style magic/psionic systems...even though flavorwise that crunch does fit the style of psionics.

2. I don't like that WotC felt the need to limit some magic because it encroached on what they perceived as the domain of psionics. Telekinesis is a great example...it's neutered as a spell in 3.x thanks to psionics. Also note the dearth of mind-reading abilities in arcane magic now. There are more examples. Magic should be capable of anything. That's what makes it magic. Magic is the primal force that built/operates the universe...and anyone can learn, given enough time and study...or rare natural talent...to learn to tap into it. Such ability should be extremely difficult and dangerous to learn, but ultimately godlike once mastered, as you are not limited in the amount of magical power you can channel. There's a whole infiniteuniverse full of it, and all of it can be harnessed by any one person...the only limit is their own skill at weilding it. Psionics represent personal energy, the power of the mind of the weilder. It is inherently limited in the strength of that one person's mind. The potential power needs to be much lower as well.

3. Psionic flavor is fantasy enough for me (not just sci-fi...heh...psi-fi?), but it needs to be limited to specific psionic races. Humans should not be among those races. While i'm not averse to a rare psionic human, it's an inborn natural ability. 99.99999% of humans don't have it. If certain races ALL have it (Ilithids, Elan, Thri-keen, etc.), I'm okay with that from a flavor perspective (apart from the issues above), but I generally don't like non-psionic races learning it.


4. I do not like the psionic classes...not a single full BAB melee type.



1) Though it sadly reminds me of the mana system of many mediocre games, the sheer interaction between powers thanks to the point system makes it worth learning.

2) Never heard people say the mind is the most powerful force in the universe? In the wake of certain inventions that allow people to be as strong as the incredible Hulk, Skycars and hovercrafts, and seed AI getting ever closer, I'm willing to agree.

3) That's what the feat Psionic Prodigy is for. You can find it Wizards' website. Just ask every psionicist to take it, it's not like they'll refuse.

4) In the wake of the duskblade, WoTC admitted that giving cleric BAB to the psiwar was a bad idea. They've pretty much admitted you should houserule full BAB for 'em.



I'd also like to point out, for everyone who will say psionic is lame: Just look at the manifestations. You can produce a smell that evokes long lost memories. You can produce the voice of the forgotten, making it rise until it reaches a shrill scream. You can create ectoplasm. Go ahead, tell me that's not awesome. And if you don't like it, you can cut the crap without using 2 feats.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2008-03-08, 11:12 AM
On the mildly outdated subject of Fantasy that blends Psionics and Magic: Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos series.

On the subject of the proud tradition of Psionics in D&D, Dark Sun.

On the subject of other objections:
Psionics is distinct from magic to those people who make use of it. Those with a poor opinion of it, without the inclination to immerse themselves, may not see it- after all, both create energy blasts, read minds, etc.

But the Psion does so bedecked in crystals, with his weapon grafted to his flesh; he does so by pure force of will, without the chains of ancient, outmoded practice to bind him. Sorcery is the weak, sniveling cousin of Wizardry.

Psionics is what Sorcery could have been- and it has, if one takes the time, its own flavor.

Wizardry is the ancient, old-guard tradition of magic. Psionics is the flashy, rebellious art that stands in contrast. You probably aren't going to see a psionicist with a long white beard and a bunch of grimoires to tote around like a cut-rate pack mule.

As to previous editions, learning a new system, and being aware of your player's powers, provided you can read I don't see that any of these are likely to be a problem.

And all you poncey, book-memorizing, wand-waving, STR-8, crossbow-wielding, 'magic-missile' shooting popinjays can quote me.
Sideways.

Hopeless
2008-03-08, 11:24 AM
... Why does everyone seem to hate psionics? I've been trying to find a game for a week or two, and every one I read says something like "core only. no psionics." It's freaking depressing, especially when I just decided on a build of psionic monk that I like...

So, does anyone know?

I don't, personally they have repeatedly failed to deal with it properly, the closest was 3.0 in that it could be run using the vancian system something that would have been a good idea however they kept the power pts rule and then 3.5 turned up and they removed the one thing that made it work in my view.

And as for any game I've played in I have never bothered to run a psionic character since the one time I got to have psionic characters was in a game I ran where it was an npc villain using the 3.0 modified rules as I saw it and it worked fine even if he posed more of a threat than anything else I threw at the party, including a group of newly awakened wererats aiding a cleric of a Kalamaran god sorry its been a while but Inertial Armour was a remarkable feat for a psion/monk.

Well I can live in hope but I doubt they will ever make psionics acceptable.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 11:28 AM
....Um, hello? The 3.0 psionics were absolutely broken and stupid. It's the 3.5 psionics that got it straight.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-08, 11:46 AM
Wizardry is the ancient, old-guard tradition of magic. Psionics is the flashy, rebellious art that stands in contrast.
Well, except that you're making this up - all of what you're saying is not "the" difference between the two disciplines (there really isn't all that much), it's just how you are seeing it personally. Many books, novels, and rulesets completely disagree.

Essentially, all you're saying is "I like psionics and everybody who disagrees with me is an idiot". That's an opinion, not an argument.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 11:52 AM
It'd be more believable to say that psionics and Vancian magic are more like Judaism and christianity. The first one is more ancient, but lost much of the fanbase after the second one appeared and was backed by a great empire (TSR).

John Campbell
2008-03-08, 12:35 PM
"Psionics" is magic for fantasy writers who want to pretend they're writing science fiction.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 12:40 PM
Or, y'know, anyone who doesn't want Vancian magic, like, just about every author ever.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-08, 12:59 PM
Or, y'know, anyone who doesn't want Vancian magic, like, just about every author ever.

It might surprise you to learn that there are other types of magic than "psionic" and "vancian", like, just about every fantasy novel that is not set in a D&D world, or written by Jack Vance.

The Will and the Word is neither psionic nor vancian. Neither is the Wit, or the Skill, or heraldic magic, or headology, or several other kinds of magic I could mention.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 01:11 PM
No, really. The Will and the word IS psionics, except the name "magic" is much cooler and the first thing to appear, ALWAYS.

And to be frank, magic can be summed up in three types, aside from Vancian:

Rituals, which usually take an inordinate amount of time or a great sacrifice and are like "Wish, but no holds barred".

Power reservoir, or Psionics as you name it. Good examples of this are the Circle of Magic novels and Eddings' two pentalogies that have Garion as the center.

Warlock, or magic as supernatural abilities. Sometimes, overlaps with Power Reservoir.

And of course, there are things that don't fit any of this system, but are oddballs.

horseboy
2008-03-08, 01:18 PM
And that's really the point. Most DMs, and indeed most fantasy authors, entirely fail to see why there should be more kinds or systems of magic in their world. Heck, most fantasy authors don't even have "divine" magic. If D&D has nearly a dozen, it should come as no surprise that most people don't actually want that kind of complexity, or want to have to justify that separation in their world building.Yeah, pretty much the only one that comes to mind is Robert Howard.

There's another reason that I'm surprised nobody brought up yet. Psionics isn't rooted in "science" or Sci-fi but in Indian and Asian mysticism. So, interesting corollary, how many people that don't like psionics also don't like TOB for being "too anime"?

Jothki
2008-03-08, 01:27 PM
I suspect that one of the greatest problems with Psionics and the fluff behind it is the existance of the Sorceror class. If that class didn't exist, Psionic fluff would probably be far more "normal".

RagnaroksChosen
2008-03-08, 01:53 PM
This is why Eberron is better than the realms ;p

um sir there are actualy psyonics in both i belive(ebbron im not shure of) realsm i know there is Durger/mindflyers come to mind quickly.

althoguh i know im horribly bia's twords realms becuase i love it so much.

Chronos
2008-03-08, 01:57 PM
On the mildly outdated subject of Fantasy that blends Psionics and Magic: Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos series.I was going to mention that. Another good example is David Weber's series about Bahzell Bahnakson (the first two books, which I recommend to anyone who likes paladins, are Oath of Swords and The War God's Own).

But it is notable that, in both the Bahzell books and the Taltos books, while psionics is clearly distinct from "magic", and does some things better, in both series it's also overall clearly inferior to the dominant magic system. In fact, both series also have Wild Magic, which is far more powerful than either, but lost or nearly so, and unavailable to even the greatest of "normal" magic users. This works fine for a novel, but not so well in a game where you're trying to maintain some sort of balance. And if you're going to try to keep the different kinds of magic-users balanced with each other, it's just so much simpler to have a single system that they all use.

ZeroNumerous
2008-03-08, 02:03 PM
And all you poncey, book-memorizing, wand-waving, STR-8, crossbow-wielding, 'magic-missile' shooting popinjays can quote me.
Sideways.

Just to clarify: Psions don't need STR, can use dorjes, cognizance crystals, crossbows, and have energy-missiles.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-08, 02:16 PM
4) In the wake of the duskblade, WoTC admitted that giving cleric BAB to the psiwar was a bad idea. They've pretty much admitted you should houserule full BAB for 'em.
I've always houseruled the Soulknife to full BAB instead. I mean, they suck as it is, they deserve a little something, and if any class should be the straight up fighter of the Psi classes, it's the guy whose one and only power is the ability to create weapons out of pure Psi force and engage in melee with them.

I mean, seriously.

D10 hit die, full BAB.

And it's still hard to get people to play them.

I think the main problem is they can't crossclass effectively at all. Even a one level dip can really mess you up. You NEED those advances on your mindblade's enhancement bonus and extra damage from "charging" your mindblade.

They keep releasing extra feats for it like that's going to help... I mean, gosh, being able to make a mindblade into a two bladed sword is nice but... It doesn't change the fundamental issues with the class.

I have trouble seeing the PsyWar as underpowered. It gets some really nice powers. I mean, I realize that the Paladin gets d10 hit die and full BAB, but he also doesn't get spells until level 4 or whatever. But then again, Paladins ain't exactly paragons of a balanced class... Ok, I can see either giving a PsyWar a D10 hit die or full BAB. One or the other would make sense.

DementedFellow
2008-03-08, 02:16 PM
I hate psionics because I don't believe in silent p's.

AlterForm
2008-03-08, 02:18 PM
I hate psionics because I don't believe in silent p's.

Hooked on Sionics? :smallbiggrin:

GammaPaladin
2008-03-08, 02:23 PM
um sir there are actualy psyonics in both i belive(ebbron im not shure of) realsm i know there is Durger/mindflyers come to mind quickly.

althoguh i know im horribly bia's twords realms becuase i love it so much.
Yeah, but I was responding to the guy who said he'd never allow things like this, because then he'd have psionics and kung fu artists in his campaign setting. Eberron pretty much has those written into the canon and flavor, so you can't complain that they're disrupting your beautiful SCA-geek purist fantasyland.

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 02:43 PM
The Will and the Word is neither psionic nor vancian. Neither is the Wit, or the Skill, or heraldic magic, or headology, or several other kinds of magic I could mention.
Kurald's awesome counter +1-> Kurald's awesome counter.
haha. Headology.

Other people:
And if you're going to dismiss all the cool parts about Psionics (Up the Walls, Speed of Thought) as magical, then yes, magic is better than psionics. You're confused, is your problem. Better than normal=/=automatically magic. (hah, automagically).

I always viewed magic as a kind of science. If you know enough, and have the right equipment, you can make things explode, or turn into other things, or god knows what else. Sorcery is a channeling of your natural draconic talent.

Psionics is basically shaping the world with the power of your brain. You don't need the trappings and such, because you're tapping into something deeper than that. I could go into quantum and stuff being observed here, but the principle is the same. I can run up the walls not because I know more than you, but because I've shaped my mind into a scalpel capable of cutting me free from gravity, metaphorically speaking.

And the reason most people don't like psionics is prejudice. Damn you, earlier edition psionics!:smallfurious: Ah well. I like them, and lots of other non-core stuff too. You don't have to.

kieza
2008-03-08, 03:17 PM
I don't like psionics, but I don't hate the idea. I just think that it doesn't fit the flavor of all the other "magics" in the game. Both divine and arcane casters, regardless of class, use the same sort of magic items and have the same sort of feel to them. I just don't see the crystal-focused items that the psions work with meshing with the system. If I were to use them heavily, I'd probably just reflavor them as wands and scrolls and so forth. Oh, and the tattoos are worse.

shadeofblack
2008-03-08, 03:25 PM
I don't like to use psionics because as a long time x-men reader I just can't take the D&D list of psionic powers seriously. I mean, "Breath of the Black Dragon: Your mouth spews forth vitriolic acid that deals 11d6 points of acid damage to any targets in the area."... come on... when I think of psionic powers Nathan Grey comes to my mind, not some bold guy with tattoos all over his body spitting acid.

the power system in 3.5, however, is really good.

Chronos
2008-03-08, 03:48 PM
They keep releasing extra feats for it like that's going to help... I mean, gosh, being able to make a mindblade into a two bladed sword is nice but... It doesn't change the fundamental issues with the class.Especially since the Soulknife can't afford all of the feats he'd need to be playable. I think it's four different feats you need just to be able to deal with all the different kinds of damage reduction, and the class doesn't have any selectable bonus feats. Forget about the fallen paladin as "fighter without bonus feats"... The Soulknife ends up being "fighter without regular feats, either".

Saph
2008-03-08, 03:53 PM
I went out of my way to learn psionics for the current campaign I'm running. To be honest, if I were doing it all over again, I'd seriously consider asking the psionic characters to play non-psionic classes instead.

It's not that the psionics rules are terrible or anything, it's that it's a hassle to fit yet another magic system into D&D. Now in addition to arcane institutions and divine institutions, I have to put psionic ones in too. I also have to add psionic treasure, because the psions have to use dorjes and crystals instead of wands and pearls. And I have to familiarise myself with a hundred or so new powers in addition to all the spells in D&D already.

It's just more work, and I'm not at all sure whether the payoff is worth it. There are so many casting classes in D&D already, is it really that important to have yet another set layered on top of them?

- Saph

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 03:58 PM
*Feeling like a Kennedy*


Yes, if that's what it takes to find a reasonably balanced caster.

Saph
2008-03-08, 04:03 PM
Psionic balance is overrated. A well-played mid- to high-level Psion is still far better than most classes - maybe not quite as powerful as a Wizard, but the Psion has plenty of other advantages to make up for it (automatic still, automatic silent, undetectable casting, full spontaneous casting, powers that are augmentable on the fly).

- Saph

Aquillion
2008-03-08, 04:03 PM
Also, don't forget: Psionics had one of the first really functional out-of-the-box gish classes in the PsiWar (although, in a way, they're barely a gish, since virtually all their abilities just support them in combat.) That's one of the things that, I think, arcane magic really hasn't matched... there are some ok arcane fighter/mage classes out there now, sure, but none of them are really comparable to the PsiWar.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 04:10 PM
Saph, a psionicist has more powers, versatility, and bang for the buck out of a low level power. For that, he sacrifices being able to screw over the universe, his ability to really supercheese his powers (With metapsionics) is extra limited, and he can actually pick powers without having to worry about obsoleting the party if he's a good, nice teamplayer. HOW that is not a desirable exchange from wizards in unfathomable. Yes, a psion is still on the top of the character tiers, but powerful, non fullcasting classes actually have a chance against him.

And Aquillion I agree, while the duskblade comes close, no other gish can quite match the self sufficiency and balance of the psiwar.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-08, 04:12 PM
Psionic balance is overrated. A well-played mid- to high-level Psion is still far better than most classes - maybe not quite as powerful as a Wizard, but the Psion has plenty of other advantages to make up for it (automatic still, automatic silent, undetectable casting, full spontaneous casting, powers that are augmentable on the fly).

- Saph

It's not overrated. The difference between the Psion and the Wizard is very significant (can a 10th level psion fly all day? Nooo. Can he be Greater Invisible? Nooo. Solid fog? No. Can he... no. Whenever I play a psion, I wince whenever I examine my power list and compare it to spell lists).

A well-played psion is still good, but not overwhelming.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 04:42 PM
Oh I know Bandededed, it's a matter of habit. Had they been printed in core, and normal magic in a supplement, everyone would be spitting on Wizard class and Glitterdust now.

Had they done that, D&D would not be nearly as popular as it is; this forum would probably be called Gaming (World of Darkness) or Gaming (GURPS).


"The tatooed man gives you a terrifying glare, and as you watch, his eyes begin to glow, and fire explodes all around you."

I can't see how that's not cool.

It is not as cool as

"The tatooed man draws a symbol in the air as though it were parchment, his finger leaving a trail of light hanging in front of him. You start towards him, intent on disrupting his spell, but it is too late. With a final shouted word and a slash of his finger, the symbol explodes outwards; your world turns to flame."

That's the issue, fundamentally.


2. I don't like that WotC felt the need to limit some magic because it encroached on what they perceived as the domain of psionics. Telekinesis is a great example...it's neutered as a spell in 3.x thanks to psionics. Also note the dearth of mind-reading abilities in arcane magic now. There are more examples. Magic should be capable of anything. That's what makes it magic. Magic is the primal force that built/operates the universe...and anyone can learn, given enough time and study...or rare natural talent...to learn to tap into it. Such ability should be extremely difficult and dangerous to learn, but ultimately godlike once mastered, as you are not limited in the amount of magical power you can channel. There's a whole infiniteuniverse full of it, and all of it can be harnessed by any one person...the only limit is their own skill at weilding it. Psionics represent personal energy, the power of the mind of the weilder. It is inherently limited in the strength of that one person's mind. The potential power needs to be much lower as well.

I disagree; magic needs to have rules on what it can do, and very stringent restrictions. First off, being a game, its horribly unbalanced if one class can do anything. And second, its just not as cool to be able to do ANYTHING as having rules to follow. I think Full Metal Alchemist's "equivalent exchange" is cool for exactly this reason.


2) Never heard people say the mind is the most powerful force in the universe? In the wake of certain inventions that allow people to be as strong as the incredible Hulk, Skycars and hovercrafts, and seed AI getting ever closer, I'm willing to agree.

The mind isn't a force, its just a bunch of electrochemical signals :P It just happens to be good at creating ever increasing complexity.


I'd also like to point out, for everyone who will say psionic is lame: Just look at the manifestations. You can produce a smell that evokes long lost memories. You can produce the voice of the forgotten, making it rise until it reaches a shrill scream. You can create ectoplasm. Go ahead, tell me that's not awesome. And if you don't like it, you can cut the crap without using 2 feats.

Magic does all that and a bag of chips. None of these are "psionic" effects, they're magical effects.


But the Psion does so bedecked in crystals, with his weapon grafted to his flesh; he does so by pure force of will, without the chains of ancient, outmoded practice to bind him. Sorcery is the weak, sniveling cousin of Wizardry.

Wizards use crystals even IN D&D, as do other magic-users, and even real life "wizards" use crystals; take a look around a new age shop.

Its not that we don't understand psionics; its that we understand it more deeply. Its trappings are those of magic, but lamer; its abilities are magical, but lamer. This isn't a game mechanics thing; this is what psionics actually is from a deep storytelling standpoint.

All psionics is magic stripped of many of its trappings.

What do psions have that wizards didn't have first?


Or, y'know, anyone who doesn't want Vancian magic, like, just about every author ever.

What kind of argument is this?

This is dumb. Are you saying wizards in 4th edition don't cast spells because they don't use vancian magic?

Vancian magic =! magic; if all magic was vancian, they wouldn't need to add the adjective "vancian" to it. Gandalf doesn't use vancian magic, nor does merlin. You're going to claim they were using psionics?

The answer is clearly not.


No, really. The Will and the word IS psionics, except the name "magic" is much cooler and the first thing to appear, ALWAYS.

No, what you're failing at is realizing that this IS magic. Psionics IS magic. The will and the word IS magic. Claiming it isn't is silly; it clearly is labelled as such.

What you're arguing is that there is a difference between psionics and magic, and there fundamentally is not. This is my entire point. If you can call anything which is "psionic" magic, then it isn't a seperate thing at all, and it proves my point, so why even have it around?


There's another reason that I'm surprised nobody brought up yet. Psionics isn't rooted in "science" or Sci-fi but in Indian and Asian mysticism. So, interesting corollary, how many people that don't like psionics also don't like TOB for being "too anime"?

Uh, no it isn't. What gave you THAT idea? It is a very western idea, and really, its just the evolution of belief in magic and the supernatural in the increasingly secularized western society. We all know magic doesn't exist, so fundamentally those who claimed magical abilities switched over to psionics so they would sound less stupid and be able to convince more of the gullible. There's nothing indian or asian about psionics. This is a false association.

While some psionicists pretend they were trained by magical negros or wise gurus from Asia or what have you, it is far from inherent to the notion, and many famous psychics were quite american (though they'd often claim ancient knowledge as well, much like wizards did; see the claims of Atlantean descent, for instance).

And I like the ToB and despise psionics in fantasy.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 04:49 PM
I could go into a long, useless but entertaining rant to counter your post, Titanium, but since I'm lazy and don't want to waste my time, I'll let someone else do it. Plus, I consider that posts that have to split themselves to talk about bits 'n pieces of other posts are nulled, by the simple fact that it shows the poster couldn't tackle the whole post at once and had to choose bits to nitpick.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-03-08, 04:53 PM
Yeah, but I was responding to the guy who said he'd never allow things like this, because then he'd have psionics and kung fu artists in his campaign setting. Eberron pretty much has those written into the canon and flavor, so you can't complain that they're disrupting your beautiful SCA-geek purist fantasyland.


ya i can see that my bad.. i miss understood.

Thexare Blademoon
2008-03-08, 05:01 PM
But you know, I can see someone making scary faces, screaming, or pointing threateningly when using Psionics than magic. Psionics seems to have more emotional content.

Gah!

My first thought was Phoenix Wright's OBJECTION! being used to mentally blast someone. And I've never played the games!


Plus, I consider that posts that have to split themselves to talk about bits 'n pieces of other posts are nulled, by the simple fact that it shows the poster couldn't tackle the whole post at once and had to choose bits to nitpick.

That is the single worst argument I've ever read on the GitP forums. Many posts - such as the one he was responding to - cover multiple very different points which must be responded to individually.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 05:06 PM
individually.

And even more just do it because they can't do a proper counterpoint against the other parts of the post.

Saph
2008-03-08, 05:18 PM
It's not overrated. The difference between the Psion and the Wizard is very significant (can a 10th level psion fly all day? Nooo. Can he be Greater Invisible? Nooo. Solid fog? No. Can he... no.

On the other hand, a 10th-level wizard can't keep on using his spells while grappled, pinned, silenced, stripped naked, and without access to his equipment. Whereas for a psion, that's no more than a mild inconvenience. Psions may not have as high a proportion of utterly broken spells, but they don't have most of an arcane caster's weaknesses, either.

But anyway, this isn't really something I care that much about. The point I was making - and my answer to the OP - was that I just don't think psionics are worth the work required to integrate a new type of magic into a campaign setting.

- Saph

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 05:19 PM
I could go into a long, useless but entertaining rant to counter your post, Titanium, but since I'm lazy and don't want to waste my time, I'll let someone else do it. Plus, I consider that posts that have to split themselves to talk about bits 'n pieces of other posts are nulled, by the simple fact that it shows the poster couldn't tackle the whole post at once and had to choose bits to nitpick.

I'm not "nitpicking"; I'm responding to that which merits a response. Some of the issues I'd already addressed previously, and others simply aren't worth responding to (or are simply unimportant if some major point is answered, as is part of the case here).

Claiming that this sort of response is bad is not very honest. This is the kind of response which lets people understand what you're talking about; if someone comes to the thread and looks on the last page, they can see what is currently being discussed without having to go back a page. Additionally it lets you know what I'm responding to specifically.

This thread is called "Why does everyone hate psionics?"

To sum up the answer, it is thus:

Psionics is nothing but a stripped-down form of magic which lacks a lot of the cooler trappings of magic in order to make it more plausible to some small subset of the audience. More specifically, psionics is used in sci-fi and modern stuff because the modern audience knows magic isn't real, but is slightly more willing to accept psionics; the entire reason the word exists is to con people into being more willing to accept it. There's no difference between psionics and magic, though; they're just different words. Psionics doesn't have anything magic does not have, thus, in a setting where the Rule of Cool applies over "realism", you're always going to want to include magic rather than psionics because they are the same thing, but magic is cooler thanks to its greater trappings and mysticism.

This is why psionics is inferior to magic. It has nothing to do with game systems or anything else; it is a deep storytelling problem. Psionics IS magic, so their coexistance is always going to make psionics look lame by comparison. As such, you should simply stick to magic when you can.

When you said "the will and the word is psionics" you proved my point; if you can claim something which is explicitly stated to be magic as being what psionics is, then you have to realize that psionics is nothing BUT magic, but narrower and stripped down to make it more "realistic" to a modern audience.

The Rose Dragon
2008-03-08, 05:24 PM
Of course, magic being cooler that psionics is just an opinion. I could say psionics is cooler because it doesn't have to resort to such things as spellbooks, smelly components, gestures and stuff and comes directly from the mind without any tools. Indeed, I could say that magic is psionics with redundant trappings.

Storytelling wise, we could both be right. Depends on the story you're telling.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 05:28 PM
Now, THAT'S the kind of post I'm willing to counterpost to. When you have to deal with a whole lotta 'ffairs, just be simple. Much better than a two million word rant based on nitpicks.

Basically, yes, psionics is inherently inferior to magic. It doesn't draw from the uni/multi/magnaverse's masochistic desire to break and hurt itself, but I don't believe psionics exist because of believability (Though I believe the point in time where humanity might be able to do something similar to psionics is drawing closer). Rather, it's because, as you mentioned, psionics is weaker, but stems from true, inherent power and skill. As many people pointed out, any Joe schmoe can be a wizard, but it takes a special sort to tap into yourself, to learn to manipulate yourself and does affect the universe. Weaker and more limited? Yes, definetely. More endearing, interesting, and, in D&D's case, balanced than classical magic? Hell yes, Monty.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 05:31 PM
Of course, magic being cooler that psionics is just an opinion. I could say psionics is cooler because it doesn't have to resort to such things as spellbooks, smelly components, gestures and stuff and comes directly from the mind without any tools. Indeed, I could say that magic is psionics with redundant trappings.

Here's the thing: if there was a mix of psionics and magic in lots of fantasy, you'd be right. But that clearly is not the case; in the overwhelming majority of fantasy, magic is present and psionics is absent. That indicates something, and it isn't "this is just an opinion". It ties into deep archetypes in the mind.

People can SAY what you said, but that doesn't make it true, or right, or correct, even to them. Mythology is the way it is for a reason, and popular culture is the way it is for a reason. Fantasy did not randomly decide on what it would use; it uses magic for very good mythic archetype reasons.


Basically, yes, psionics is inherently inferior to magic. It doesn't draw from the uni/multi/magnaverse's masochistic desire to break and hurt itself, but I don't believe psionics exist because of believability (Though I believe the point in time where humanity might be able to do something similar to psionics is drawing closer). Rather, it's because, as you mentioned, psionics is weaker, but stems from true, inherent power and skill. As many people pointed out, any Joe schmoe can be a wizard, but it takes a special sort to tap into yourself, to learn to manipulate yourself and does affect the universe. Weaker and more limited? Yes, definetely. More endearing, interesting, and, in D&D's case, balanced than classical magic? Hell yes, Monty.

Uh, I actually already pointed out that the opposite was true in my post above. If you look at people who claim to be psychics, most often they'll claim lots of people have the potential for such powers, but they simply aren't tapping into the resources of their mind/the unused 90% of the brain/insert pseudoscientific or mystical babble here. They don't claim that it takes a special sort; they claim anyone can do it. This also carries over into literature, where humans have latent psionic powers fairly often when it appears.

This is actually in strict contraction to wizards, which typically are much less mundane. Often, not just anyone can do magic; its tied to something else. You have to do a pact with demons, or have a spellbook, or have the power deep within you, or what have you, but usually wizards are -special-. Wizards are, by and large, special people in literature. Gandalf the Gray, Merlin, Rand Al'Thor and the Aes Sedai, Harry Potter and the students at Hogwarts... these aren't normal people. There is something special and distinct about them.

Real life faith healers are con artists, and occaisionally claim anyone can do it... but oftentimes they don't. They're "blessed by god", or "God's chosen one", or even sometimes claim to be a god themselves (cult leaders do this from time to time). They make themselves out to be special and blessed with myserious divine powers. You'll sometimes see people who claim they can train others in such powers, but will usually say these people are special (and always inferior to themselves in ability).

People who claim in real life to have magical abilities are much more likely to claim they are unique or special, and that they and only they (or some small subset of people) are able to have such powers.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 05:35 PM
Yeah. Namely, the name came first and it was easier to remember for Joe sixpack. If you can't even pronounce something well, it isn't scary and interesting, and I bet quite a big bunch of idiots went "pee-sionics? Hey, it has piss in it!" and laughed their arses off. Meanwhile, magic got more respect.

Attilargh
2008-03-08, 05:38 PM
Psionics and magic are merely points on the Sliding Scale of Flashiness of Supernatural Shenaningas. In one extreme we have a guy who just stands there and stuff blows up. I find this rather cool. In the other extreme we find a guy in a sparkly tutu dancing flamenco with a stuffed mutant crocodile while reciting O Fortuna backwards. As you might observe from the example I chose, I find this somewhat less cool.

Oh, and Titaninum Dragon? Are you really arguing with a straight face that something can be considered objectively cool? On the Internet?

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 05:38 PM
So, to summarize: Everything that's cool about magic is psionics, and the coolest part about magic is the phat lewts and crystal balls that you need to use it.

No wonder you don't like psionics.

Open your mind for a bit, here, and assume that supernatural effects aren't all from the same source. Assume that magic is harnessing something fundamental about the universe, using specific items and incantations to reshape the universe. There's something about fire which makes it appear if you wave your arms right and say the right words.

Now assume, further, (dangerous, I know), that someone else found a different way to make cool stuff happen. Instead of exploiting a very specific set of circumstances, he reshapes the world without components, foci, or robes. Using only the raw willpower, he turns thin air into raging beasts, pushes people about, blows stuff up, etc. Assume that they aren't the same thing. Assume that magic doesn't mean stuff which doesn't make sense, assume that it means people who make stuff not make sense in a very specific way. The skulls and smoke way, not the raw willpower way. Then Up The Walls and Speed of Thought are different than magic, and magic can't claim credit for them. They are psionic effects. Mind over physics, instead of advanced rapid-acting science, as it were.

And if you think that crystals are inherently lamer than wands, go right ahead. I can't stop you, and I'm never going to be able to change your mind. If you think that raw willpower is really that much lamer than harnessing someone/something else's power, go right ahead. A bald guy, crystal sitting on his shoulder, tattoos crawling over his body as he lifts himself through sheer force of will? Pretty cool. And most importantly different from every other wizard out there. And they don't have the "awesome" trappings of regular magic, but if you think the coolest part about wizardry is the magical or just esoteric junk you need to do it right, and not the fact that you just ran up the damn wall, then yes, magic is cooler. But if the fact that you don't need a tongue of basilisk and hat of redcap, and pancreas of dragon to make something interesting happen is cool, then psionics is for you.

Besides, everyone loves mind flayers.

Edit/P.S. Titanium Dragon, the reason there's magic in every book and almost never psionics, is because that's what psionics is called. For our purposes magic=traditional wizards, with spells and circles and wands and the like. DnD wizards, incantations, spells. Psions=guys who blow stuff up with their mind, with some kind of inherent power.

Some books, the "magic" is magic for the purposes of this conversation. e.g. So you want to be a wizard, Diane Duane. Words, spells, literature=magic. Eragon=magic. I hated that book, let's say no more about it.

But those books with the elemental theme? Essentially psionics. I remember now, they were called, something of magic, by Tamora Pierce. It was called magic, but really acted like psionics. Subtract the words from eragon, that was also psionics, but with extra words. Inner strength, converted by willpower into stuff happening. My point here is that when you say "look supernatural stuff!" People always default to "oh, magic." That's because magic is more common. Even if the "magic" involved is really more similar to psionics in every respect, it's still called "magic".

Wow, I'm not very coherent today.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 05:45 PM
We've made a meme: Everything's better with Mindflayers.

Bag_of_Holding
2008-03-08, 05:46 PM
Worry no more- Secrets of Sarlona has introduced us to a whole new concept: Psionic Prestidigitation! Now psions can dye their hair, too... :smallamused:

Cuddly
2008-03-08, 05:47 PM
We've made a meme: Everything's better with Mindflayers.

http://casadelogo.typepad.com/factesque/images/milhouse_1.jpg

an kobold
2008-03-08, 05:50 PM
http://casadelogo.typepad.com/factesque/images/milhouse_1.jpg

Milhouse is not a meme :smallmad: .

horseboy
2008-03-08, 05:52 PM
Uh, no it isn't. What gave you THAT idea?Yogi mind over body techniques. How often bad guys from India/Cathay/Russia are able to impose their mind onto other's minds by staring into their eyes, no crystal balls or newt brains involved. The whole "Astral projection" thing. The list goes on.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 05:54 PM
Open your mind for a bit, here, and assume that supernatural effects aren't all from the same source. Assume that magic is harnessing something fundamental about the universe, using specific items and incantations to reshape the universe. There's something about fire which makes it appear if you wave your arms right and say the right words.

Have you read many fantasy novels?

Magic does not imply power source. If you look in fantasy, magic power sources vary wildly - it may come from dragons, gods, demons, a giant tree, a big crystal, a hole in reality, another dimension, the land around you, the life around you, the sky, the stars, the moons, or just yourself. All of these are equally called magic, and in old mythology, the source of magical powers are at times just completely undefined. It doesn't particularly matter to magic where it comes from. External power sources are not an inherent part of magic.

Psionics is but one example of internal power sources in magic. You might look at The Glass Dragon, where there is both external magic derived from the dragons and internal magic which you fuel with your own body.


And if you think that crystals are inherently lamer than wands, go right ahead.

I never said crystals are lamer than wands. Indeed, if you'd ever seen a magic wand, you'd know that a great number of them have crystals on the end of them. And I'm not talking just in fantasy, though that is very common; in real life, if I want to go and find a wand, I'm probably going to find something with a crystal on the end of it. Same with a mage's staff, for that matter.

What I was pointing out, in fact, was that crystals are trappings of magic in general, not just psionics. The dragons of The Glass Dragon are transparent and crystaline in some ways; if you look at MTG artwork, you'll find lots of wizards with staffs with crystals on the ends of them. Ioun stones are magical crystals which float around the heads of wizards.


A bald guy, crystal sitting on his shoulder, tattoos crawling over his body as he lifts himself through sheer force of will?

Like the Avatar Aang, of Avatar: The Last Airbender? So psionic its magic?


Besides, everyone loves mind flayers.

But that's not why.

Attilargh
2008-03-08, 05:58 PM
Milhouse is not a meme
is a meme.

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 05:59 PM
We've made a meme: Everything's better with Mindflayers.

Now we just have to propagate it.

And you did too say crystals are lamer than wands. You said that psionic trappings are lamer than magical trappings.

A fist sized, intelligent rock I can guide with my mind > knobbly stick.

And I'm not totally sure what Aang has to do with anyone...

Collin152
2008-03-08, 06:04 PM
A fist sized, intelligent rock I can guide with my mind > knobbly stick.


To you, perhaps. I kind of prefer the iconic wizard over Mr. Ink-and-Stone. I don't even like ioun stones! Staffs and Rods are my favorite kinds of magic items!

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 06:12 PM
To you, perhaps. I kind of prefer the iconic wizard over Mr. Ink-and-Stone. I don't even like ioun stones! Staffs and Rods are my favorite kinds of magic items!

This from the guy who posted in the BoEF builds thread not 3 minutes ago. I detect a double entendre.

Oop! 3-post rule! my bad.:smallredface:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 06:13 PM
To follow that trend, he's touchéd you.

The Rose Dragon
2008-03-08, 06:16 PM
Oop! 3-post rule! my bad.:smallredface:

The 3-post rule only applies to most SMBGs. You're safe.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-08, 06:52 PM
No, really. The Will and the word IS psionics,
No it's not, because it doesn't involve ectoplasm and sentient crystals with pseudopods.

And I can think of several examples that don't fit in your triad, like Patternwalking.



I suspect that one of the greatest problems with Psionics and the fluff behind it is the existance of the Sorceror class. If that class didn't exist, Psionic fluff would probably be far more "normal".
Actually that's a good point. In 1E/2E, an alternative mechanic to Vancian was sought, and this was psionics. In 3E, an alternative mechanic to Vancian was sought again, and this became the sorcerer, and they also stuck with psionics. In 3.5E, after realizing the sorcerer didn't work out too well, a third alternative mechanic was sought, and this became the warlock - and they kept the sorc and psio around. And now in 4E, all four of those become standard base classes, even if they have essentially the same fluff.



You're confused, is your problem. Better than normal=/=automatically magic. (hah, automagically).
No, but fluff-wise, psionics is a kind of magic, because in most settings, magic is also basically shaping the world with the power of your brain. Recommended literature for this is the core book for Mage: the Ascension.



That's one of the things that, I think, arcane magic really hasn't matched... there are some ok arcane fighter/mage classes out there now, sure, but none of them are really comparable to the PsiWar.
One word: Duskblade.

And yeah, psions may be weaker than wizards, but that doesn't make them balanced - they're still first tier out of seven.



And even more just do it because they can't do a proper counterpoint against the other parts of the post.
So essentially, you're saying you don't have a counter-argument, so you're doing the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-08, 06:55 PM
It just struck me that this entire thread is reminiscent of Mage: the Ascension.

For people who haven't played that - there are a plethora of different ways of reality shaping, such as candles&pentagrams, herblore, chi focus, loa spirit guides, and even weird science and computer hacking. These are all together called "magic". A number of factions (called "traditions") exist, that each practice one and only one of these methods, and believe theirs is the Only True Method.

And they're all wrong. The one faction that has nearly won their power struggle is the one that figured out that they all only work because people believe they work, and they found a way of shaping the belief of the ignorant masses, so now their magic is most prevalent and easiest in the contemporary world. That magic is called "modern science".

It's a really interesting premise. If you take somebody from the middle ages and show him a lightbulb, he'd call it magic. Any sufficiently advanced science...

Collin152
2008-03-08, 07:03 PM
This from the guy who posted in the BoEF builds thread not 3 minutes ago. I detect a double entendre.


Hope you diddn't waste a spell on detecting that.
Then again, why would I disdain stones if that were the case?

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 07:06 PM
I have detect double entendre as a SLA. Like a warlock.

I don't know. Maybe you just prefer wands and staves?

hippie_dwarf
2008-03-08, 07:07 PM
Worry no more- Secrets of Sarlona has introduced us to a whole new concept: Psionic Prestidigitation! Now psions can dye their hair, too... :smallamused:

Psions? Hair? How very dare you! :smallbiggrin:

Collin152
2008-03-08, 07:14 PM
I have detect double entendre as a SLA. Like a warlock.

I don't know. Maybe you just prefer wands and staves?

Wands? Bah. Rods, lad, Rods!
Oh, and I hate it when people get detect effects for free, like Paladins and Warlocks.
Couldn't you just take ranks in Sense Innuendo?

Solaris
2008-03-08, 07:15 PM
So, in short, some people really freakin' hate psionics (especially in D&D), whereas other people really freakin' love psionics (especially in D&D), and there's really no way to get them to get along short of brainwashing, torture, and Girl Scout cookies. Or possibly talking about something else.

Personally, I love most of the psionics rules (but not the pseudoscientific babble), but I loathe the fluff. Mostly because I got this notion of Psionics = SciFi (who was it that said PsiFi? Very punny) and Magic = Fantasy stuck in my head. Despite repeated efforts, I can't seem to make it come out. There's no real logical reason for me disliking psionic player characters in D&D beyond that.
After all, everything is better with Mind Flayers.

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 07:28 PM
This thread is amazing. It went from a question, to an enumeration of reasons, to a full on debate, to utter silliness.

Rods and mind flayers, cookies and girl scouts, Fantasy and PsiFi.

Collin152
2008-03-08, 07:31 PM
Rods and mind flayers, cookies and girl scouts, Fantasy and PsiFi.

By the cricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes!

Oh, and if you want explanation as to why I associate psionics with modern times instead of the psudeo-prereneseance setting, play Second Sight.
Or, just play it because it's fun.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 07:34 PM
And pun. And Yippi-tappa-dippa-wow-tee-wow.

Collin152
2008-03-08, 07:41 PM
Gesundeit.

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 07:51 PM
So, in short, some people really freakin' hate psionics (especially in D&D), whereas other people really freakin' love psionics (especially in D&D), and there's really no way to get them to get along short of brainwashing, torture, and Girl Scout cookies. Or possibly talking about something else.

Personally, I love most of the psionics rules (but not the pseudoscientific babble), but I loathe the fluff. Mostly because I got this notion of Psionics = SciFi (who was it that said PsiFi? Very punny) and Magic = Fantasy stuck in my head. Despite repeated efforts, I can't seem to make it come out. There's no real logical reason for me disliking psionic player characters in D&D beyond that.
After all, everything is better with Mind Flayers.
Travestied: (http://www.eskimo.com/~rstarr/poormfa/travesty.html)

So, in shorture, and Magical logic babble), but no washing is better character
ally freakin' hat. After ally freason of brainwas othe psionics = SciFi?
Verything is notionics = SciFi? Very punny) and Girl Scout come psion of
the pseudoscientific players

Thank you internet, for "no washing is better character ally freakin' hat."

Illiterate Scribe
2008-03-08, 07:52 PM
We've made a meme: Everything's better with Mindflayers.

I'm going to post this every day until you like it.

Anyhow, I like psionics for one reason, and one reason only:

TIEM MANIPULATION.

Everything else can go to the (arcane) dogs, but I loves me my quintessence, timeless body, and time regression.

Squash Monster
2008-03-08, 07:57 PM
Hmmm - I think it´s rather weird if one has both Psionics and Magic in the game world, since both take from the same reservoir of tropes.That's really it, for me. I wouldn't mind running a game with psionics and no magic, or magic and no psionics. With both though, they're taking up the same space and stepping on each other's toes.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 07:58 PM
Yeah, it allows you to raep your Neeemiss before they are even boarn.

Collin152
2008-03-08, 08:02 PM
Yeah, it allows you to raep your Neeemiss before they are even boarn.

Don't we hae mindrape to do that?
Sure it diddn't actually happen, but it gives the same effect.

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 08:04 PM
That's really it, for me. I wouldn't mind running a game with psionics and no magic, or magic and no psionics. With both though, they're taking up the same space and stepping on each other's toes.

less efficient psionic healing. Otherwise, sign me up.

After all, V

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-08, 08:07 PM
For Vendetta!

Also, mindraep before boarne = Collin152 elevated to N-1 + 3/4 Solos.

Xuincherguixe
2008-03-08, 09:41 PM
Psionics does have one big advantage over magic.

It's weird.


Is your blasphemy without mouths or hands going to be imposing if it's got a little pointed hat on, and a wand is lodged into it's smiley form somewhere?

But, it needs to unleash the terrible secrets that it's learned through it's existence that began before time itself.


Psionics are the unnatural way of breaking nature.

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 09:59 PM
Psionics does have one big advantage over magic.

It's weird.

Is your blasphemy without mouths or hands going to be imposing if it's got a little pointed hat on, and a wand is lodged into it's smiley form somewhere?

But, it needs to unleash the terrible secrets that it's learned through it's existence that began before time itself.

Psionics are the unnatural way of breaking nature.
Awesome counter +1, guy.

I hadn't even thought of that. Also, PCs aren't as used to psionics. (there's even an adventure based on this)

Bandededed
2008-03-08, 10:23 PM
Wow, I'm gone for a day and poof, a thread appears. :smallbiggrin:

Xuincherguixe: I really like it :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Also, many people are complaining as DM's, because they would have to add additional elements to their world to reflect the caste that psions would create.

Alternatively, as is suggested somewhere in the psionic handbook, your PC could be the only psionics user in the world, or perhaps one of 3 or 4. Thus reducing your additions and simply throw a "surprised face" on any NPC who sees his abilities. You could even base major plot hooks on his power if he reveals it too easily, about evil wizards guilds desiring to replicate his powers, or something equivalent.

And why do all psions have to be bald and sporting tatoos? If they wanted to blend in anywhere, they would hide the tatoos beneath clothing or the like, and being bald is a hairstyle - or rather, a lack thereof - so not all psions would be bald. Most would actually have hair. Just because the art in the XPH shows them as being a certain way, it doesn't mean that they have to be. Don't limit yourself to the norm (for the abnormal anyway).

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 10:47 PM
Psionics does have one big advantage over magic.

It's weird.

Wrong. Its not weirder than magic. Its precisely as odd as magic is.


Psionics are the unnatural way of breaking nature.

That's what all magic is.

Collin152
2008-03-08, 10:51 PM
I have a new philosophy.
Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.
Some people are allergic to nuts, others simply deny themselves them altogether.
Nevertheless, who are we to force them to eat?

Xuincherguixe
2008-03-08, 11:03 PM
Wrong. Its not weirder than magic. Its precisely as odd as magic is.
Wrong. It is.


That's what all magic is.
Wrong. It isn't.


See? I can do this too :P

Flickerdart
2008-03-08, 11:07 PM
Who else likes the Psionics system from the normal Psionics Handbook over the Expanded? The Expanded's system is too much like regular Arcane casting...

Zincorium
2008-03-08, 11:56 PM
Who else likes the Psionics system from the normal Psionics Handbook over the Expanded? The Expanded's system is too much like regular Arcane casting...

The 'regular' psionics system you're talking about is a 3.0 book, superseded by the much better 3.5 expanded psionics handbook.

As for liking it...are you kidding me? 'Psionic combat' is an utter mess, totally pointless unless you're running a mainly psionics game, and even then it's absurd how you choose attack and defense modes and then play a wierdly named rock paper scissors to do a few points of ability damage to your opponent, when you could be doing something more useful. There's no basis for saying that the 'expanded' system is more like regular arcane casting, because it's pretty much the same system. You spend power points, you activate a power.

Jayngfet
2008-03-09, 04:12 AM
personally I'm apathetic, if some player picks it up I'll include it but there's books that better compliment what I already have, but a lot of my world uses mindflayers and gith', so I mat have to pick up a psionic book.

Somebloke
2008-03-09, 05:13 AM
For me, the only real problem with psionics is the flavor.

I've considered running an all-psionics campaign or doing what Ebberron did and making psionics an alien magic from across the oceans/another plane/those freaky Kalashtar weirdos (likewise, making Warlocks the priests of a Aztec-like religion that demands human sacrifice). A normal magic civilisation having to fend off an assault from an asian psionics-heavy culture sounds like win to me.

Ecalsneerg
2008-03-09, 05:44 AM
I'm not a huge fan of Psionics flavour (crystals!? WTF!?), despite liking the mechanics. Thankfully I don't see flavour as THE LAW and my Killoren PsyWar thus manifests it as 'fey' magic which is coincidentally exactly like psionics.

Aquillion
2008-03-09, 06:33 AM
Also, for anyone annoyed at the psionic flavor, just watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPUZIagbl94). That is the flavor psions need to go for.

Somebloke
2008-03-09, 06:56 AM
Also, for anyone annoyed at the psionic flavor, just watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPUZIagbl94). That is the flavor psions need to go for.

Hey, I love psionics flavor...I just thinkt it meshes badly with magic. Really, I would suggest dumping one of them, or clearly establishing why they are different.

Closet_Skeleton
2008-03-09, 07:53 AM
No it's not, because it doesn't involve ectoplasm and sentient crystals with pseudopods.

You've utterly lost me. How are sentient crystals, ectoplasm or pseudopods intrinsic to psionics?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-09, 09:28 AM
Uuuuh....eeeeeeehmm....GIANT FROG!

*Gives Kurald Galain time to run*

Kurald Galain
2008-03-09, 11:52 AM
You've utterly lost me. How are sentient crystals, ectoplasm or pseudopods intrinsic to psionics?

That's the fluff they get in 3E / 3.5E.

Yes, all psions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/psion.htm#psicrystals) are expected to get a sentient gem with tentacles as early as level one. And yes, pretty much all psionic powers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#display) involve rainbow lights, sticky ectoplasm, weird smells or ringing chimes in your ears. This kind of fluff is a good reason for forbidding psionics in certain settings (and, for that matter, this fluff does not, to my best knowledge, appear in any fantasy book whatsoever that is not a D&D-setting novel).

FlyMolo
2008-03-09, 04:20 PM
Yeah, but refluffing stuff is really easy.

It's not ectoplasm, it's demonic fallout.

It's not a weird smell, it's a greenish smoke caused by raw willpower crystalizing out of the air.

Etc Etc.

It's not a psicrystal, it's something else that's cooler.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-09, 04:28 PM
Yeah, but refluffing stuff is really easy.

Obviously, but if you're going for refluffing, there really is no difference between psionic magic and vancian magic any more - which is what we've been saying all along.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-09, 04:30 PM
Obviously, but if you're going for refluffing, there really is no difference between psionic magic and vancian magic any more - which is what we've been saying all along.

One is vancian, the other is not. So there is a difference.

FlyMolo
2008-03-09, 04:36 PM
Obviously, but if you're going for refluffing, there really is no difference between psionic magic and vancian magic any more - which is what we've been saying all along.

Yes there is. They work in different ways, and that means there's a logical reason for the automatic still and silent. And psionics are more flexible. The fluff is one of the reasons I like psionics. Not the displays, those are dumb. The psionic feats and psionic focus rules, I like.

But nasty smells are just stupid. Replace them with something more appropriate.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-09, 04:49 PM
One is vancian, the other is not. So there is a difference.
That is fluff.


The fluff is one of the reasons I like psionics. Not the displays, those are dumb. The psionic feats and psionic focus rules, I like.
That's a very weird statement, because "the displays" are the fluff, and the "feats and focus rules" are not fluff. So what you're actually saying is you like the crunch, and don't like the fluff.

FlyMolo
2008-03-09, 04:52 PM
That's a very weird statement, because "the displays" are the fluff, and the "feats and focus rules" are not fluff. So what you're actually saying is you like the crunch, and don't like the fluff.
The displays aren't fluff. They're a bit of crunch "stuff happens that other people can notice." The fluff bit is "smells". I don't like that fluff bit. The fluff bit I DO like is the fluff bit which allows you to run up the damn walls and drop onto people using only the power of the mind. If the feat was called Sticky Shoes instead of Up The Walls, it just wouldn't be as cool.

Bandededed
2008-03-09, 06:06 PM
One is vancian, the other is not. So there is a difference.


That is fluff.

Actually, vancian is a completely different rules system for creating magical effects. The fact that many spells are duplicated between vancian magic and psionics is because they're damn useful.

The crunch is far different, and the fluff also displays this.

Flickerdart
2008-03-09, 06:21 PM
Wow, I didn't even know Psionics Handbook was 3.0.

I still like it better. >:(

Aquillion
2008-03-09, 07:00 PM
Obviously, but if you're going for refluffing, there really is no difference between psionic magic and vancian magic any more - which is what we've been saying all along.
That's not quite fair. There are some differences in terms of the powers available. In general, more spell-like things are restricted to only one school of psionics... psions have a much, much harder time doing things like flying, summoning, and creating things without the right discipline. There is a definite emphasis on mental, temporary or brief, and insubstantial / 'force'-style effects throughout the psionic power list, with a few exceptions.

There are also a few things that are almost totally absent from psionics. There's less focus on alignment (they can sense it, but only because that's just about the only game-mechanic personality thing to detect in D&D. No protection from evil, say, or evil/good-aligned spells.) Energy is generally viewed as simple, flexable 'energy' rather than a specific type.

Psionic powers are generally deliberately flavor-neutral or at least flavor-reduced generalized abilities intended to emcompass possession of a broad ability or power, while spells tend to be extremely narrow effects that represent a particular flavor well (e.g. lightning bolt vs energy bolt). In this respect, the fluff and crunch of psionics work together and are both clearly more suitable than the ones used for psionics -- spells were developed by one person to do one thing, and often show the flavor of the person or intentions behind their creation (hence, the existence of evil spells), while psionic powers are flexable things that often have a much wider variety of uses. It makes much more sense for psionics to be augmentable than it does for spells to be augmentable... When Melf wrote Melf's Acid Arrow, he wrote it to do a specific thing based on his fixation with acid and disfigurement (or whatever). The Excellent Prismatic Spray shows the decadence of the mage who created it. The rigid way those spells are defined suits the fluff idea of magic being more of an art than a science, with spells reflecting their creators... whereas Energy Bolt represents a broad mental power over energy, and would be less suitable as a spell.

But more than that (and granting, there is certainly a massive ton of overlap, much more overlap than there are differences), refluffing the appearance of a psicrystal and the displays (both of which are, let's face it, nearly always ignored in games anyway--hence why you had to bring them up) is still easier than directly refluffing between magic and psionics.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2008-03-09, 09:55 PM
Hot on the heels of my vitriolic hatred for wizardry, comes a more considered opinion; do bear with.

On the mechanics of Psionics-
I agree with the above that Psionics, as a more 'generalized' system, is a close fit of mechanics and aesthetics. Mental power drawn from the mind of the user should be responsive to the user's will; this is reflected by the significantly larger customization element present in Psionic powers, as opposed to spells.

Each spell does one thing, one way, at one level, for one cost- a spell slot for Wizards, a spell known for Sorcerers. Wizards are limited by their spells known, their spells memorized, and, most importantly to my mind, by the text of the spell itself- each is a proscribed effect.

Psionicists, by contrast, are limited only by personal resources, their pool of points- the tedium of preparation, the half-solution of spontaneous casting, are dispensed with.
Rather than specific effects, X times a day, a Psionicist is capable of using a range, not so much of specific powers, but capabilities, such as 'deal elemental damage' or 'produce a fighting creature'.
The precise effect of these capabilities is responsive to the player's, and the character's, choices.

The primary reason I prefer Psionics to traditional magic is because of this inbuilt preference for choice, customization, and broadness.

On the aesthetics of Psionics-
When considering Psionics in terms of contrast to other magic, let us, for a moment, concede that it is magic, of a sort. The question then becomes- in relation to other forms of magic ability, what sort of magic is it? And how can one define the various other magical arts.

Wizardry, in the main, is an "art of the book", a sort of magical religion. Formulae and equations and eldritch knowledge is passed from one to another, or gleaned from ancient ruins; in the traditional D&D setting, it is primarily the province of long-lived sylvan overlords the Elves. While this need not be so, it is the iconic assumption- an ancient, learned, and eccentric or bookish type is the quintessential mage.

Sorcery could be considered the "art of the blood"- closer to much of fantasy magic in that it draws on the personal power of the user. Here, however, a slight disconnect appears between the ostensible source of the magic being used and its mechanics- the sorcerer can generate so many powerful, and so many weak, effects per day. While this makes some degree of sense in the context of magical formulae gleaned from grimoires, but as a method for depicting personal power it falls short. I find it unreasonable to assume that if a character can produce a powerful effect from their own ingrained, instinctual talent, they cannot produce a less powerful one. Explanations are possible, but I suspect them to be complex.
In addition, Sorcerers use the very same spells wizards do. Is it particularly plausible that draconic blood manifests in every single person who recieves it as the power to produce a bolt of magical force, etc.? Why, if the power is personal, are its manifestations generic? And if the sorcerer's blood is merely the power source, why are they even necessary- as wizards apparently get along fine without it.

We'll leave Shadowcasters, Warlocks, et. al. out of the discussion for now, as we are primarily discussing Vancian and Spontaneous casting in relation to Psionics.

Now; Psionics itself.
To me, Psionics represents an "art of the self". It draws on a pool of personal, inherent power, that of the mind, and produces effects that relate, obviously in most cases, to mental ability. The manifestations of psionics are as individual as the characters that make use of them; they are true constructs of imagination, rather than hand-me-down powers from the mind-mages of ages past. Psionics deals with broad, iconic concepts- time, energy, movement, thought.

Where a wizard may speak a dread word and produce the same spell other mages have produced time and time and time again, a Psionicist, drawing from his mind the potence with which he has been gifted, and which he has honed, can manipulate, with his own personal stamp, the fundamental forces of the universe.

I see a difference.

Talya
2008-03-09, 10:01 PM
I don't know of the rules have crystals and such as part of the crunch, because I don't use psionics, but I play forgotten realms, and none of the psions i've ever read about in the realms use such things.

(Of course, all the psions in the realms that I've read about have been Ilithid or Drow.)

GammaPaladin
2008-03-09, 10:19 PM
Meh. The Psion's Psicrystal is essentially just a "Psion familiar". Flavor it as you like.

horseboy
2008-03-10, 09:30 AM
But nasty smells are just stupid. Replace them with something more appropriate.Well, you could combine the stench with a *BAMF* as your psyker teleports. :smallwink:

Still, greatest psionic attack ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52pXvOFy1A4&feature=related).

Swooper
2008-03-10, 01:23 PM
That's the fluff they get in 3E / 3.5E.

Yes, all psions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/psion.htm#psicrystals) are expected to get a sentient gem with tentacles as early as level one.
Nonsense. Psicrystals are optional, and require a feat to get. And personally, I don't see any point in getting them, they're a little better than familiars, sure, but familiars are rather useless now aren't they?

Kurald Galain
2008-03-10, 01:58 PM
Nonsense. Psicrystals are optional, and require a feat to get. And personally, I don't see any point in getting them, they're a little better than familiars, sure, but familiars are rather useless now aren't they?

Nonsense yourself. Psicrystals are part of the fluff of D&D psionics, which is why they're in the D&D psionics handbook (in the chapter on the "psion" class, no less). Whether sentient gems with tentacles are blatantly ridiculous or not is a matter of taste. Familiars, however, are extremely useful, first as scouts, and later when you get to imbue them with spellcasting.