Psionic Bias?

[Ashiel]

Perhaps. I imagine that you would make the individual vestiges into something akin to spells.

However, it would take a lot of effort to make such a system balanced - at least enough effort that you could have written a completely new system from scratch.

But those components are not appreciably harder to remove. The rules already support spells without components.

WotC wouldn't have needed to do much to get psionics working under a spell slot system - there are a few minor differences in rules (such as components), and a whole pile of content (which, in many cases, only needed re-writing because of the decision to use points).

My point is that it was a bad idea for WotC to write psionics the way they did from the outset. It might have had a positive ending, but it was still a mistake.

Scarily, there wouldn't be much effort required to adapt the existing magic system either. You'd have to remove a few rules, but nobody misses rules that are inconsequential.

Being able to use other fluff isn't really important. Being able to do what it does well is important, and it being difficult to cannibalise an existing system is important.

You're correct. The Tome of Magic actually warns against trying to create new vestiges and instead suggests re-flavoring existing vestiges for balance concerns. I believe it is possible to create additional balanced vestiges, but that it would indeed be very difficult to make them good. Making them around spell-casting seems even more daunting a task.

As to the slot vs PP system concerns; frankly I don't think offering options is ever a bad design, unless the options are horribly unbalanced. For the same reasons as listed before, the Psionics system is in fact a beautiful gem. It would loose all of its mechanical value if it used the same x/day system that core magic uses. Some players don't like x/day magic, but can play a caster with psionics and be happy. That is good design. This is one of the major problems with 4th edition for a lot of people - the lack of variety. All the classes use the same mechanics, so if you don't like those mechanics, then you're out of luck. It's not that the 4E system is a bad system, but if you don't like the at-will/encounter/daily power system, then there's not much for you.

I've heard that the 4E psionics is making it a bit more interesting by giving more at-wills that you can spend points to improve like Encounter/Daily powers; and that sounds pretty cool. I don't know much about it though, but at least it offers some different options.

That's not a design flaw. That is a design feature. That is in fact a measure of good design. Far from the opposite. You're providing an alternative way to do something out of the box in a way some people prefer. If the party wants a nice sorcerer like character but someone dislikes playing a sorcerer, they might prefer playing a Psion. Since it's balanced, there's not a problem with this. Some people prefer to play intricate multi-class combinations of warrior/mage/divine classes, some people prefer Bards.

You could remove spell components and convert it all to XP costs; remove somatic and vocal components from spells; convert existing magic into a pool-based system instead of x/day to make it more attractive to people who prefer such a system; remove arcane-spell failure; and then make sure that the system is balanced; while leaving people who like those things and the x/day system with nothing.

OR you could just make the EPH/SRD psionics available, and be able to cater to both types of players without a lot of terrible imbalances, an even wider range of character options, and without all the legwork.

Yes, I still don't believe that even the plan for the EPH was a bad design decision. In fact, it seems like a truly brilliant one.

[Saph]

Additionally, effects such as detect psionics can read magic as well, and by default identifies it as the nearest equivalent. That being said, it's incredibly easy to include Psi/Spell-craft and Detect Psionics/Spells under the transparency rules and call it a day. In my tabletop game, we have always done pretty much that. If someone casts Wish for example, they can mimic psionic powers with it (using the option to copy divine spells).

The act of saying "Spellcraft and Psicraft may be used interchangeably, as well as Use Magic and Use Psionic Device; finally if you detect Magic / Psionics, you determine the school or discipline strait out" is incredibly easy. That was very easy. If you come across something that isn't specifically called out in the rules (such as the aforementioned Wish example) is just a simple matter of common sense.

Sure. I could do the work to make psionics and magic effectively the same system, and rewrite the fluff appropriately, and explain these houserules to all my players. Or, I could only use one or the other.

As a general rule, I'm not a fan of altering the mechanics and fluff of a system unless there's a very good reason for doing so. In this case, fitting psionics in with arcane magic would give players slightly more options, in exchange for more work and adjudication on my part. At which point the question becomes "are the extra options significant enough to be worth it?"

And in my opinion, the answer's no. If I had a group who were real fans of psionics, I'd do it, but I don't. Furthermore, a significant fraction of the psionics fans I've met like psionics specifically because they're NOT arcane magic, so they probably wouldn't be happy with anything that made the systems interchangeable anyway.

[Tavar]

How is it really more work? "These skills are the same."

There. You're done. And you aren't making them interchangeable, you're making them... I don't know, Interactable? They're still distinct.

And the fluff doesn't even to be changed; they're no fluff reason why Psionics and Arcane/divine don't interact. In fact, the defalut assumption is that they do.

[Starbuck_II]

I never really understood why UPD and UMD are distinct.

Heck, according to Magic Item compendruim: Psionics can make any magic item. So Vice Verse should be able to do the same.

[Ashiel]

I never really understood why UPD and UMD are distinct.

Heck, according to Magic Item compendruim: Psionics can make any magic item. So Vice Verse should be able to do the same.

I've always believed it was because people may choose the psionics are different option, despite being very, very, very emphasised in the book itself that that's a very large hassle; but included them for completion's sake.

[The Big Dice]

As to the slot vs PP system concerns; frankly I don't think offering options is ever a bad design, unless the options are horribly unbalanced.

Don't you think that offering wildly different sets of rules within the confines of the same game, with the same end result, is bad design?

Under the regular magic rules you have four basic categories, Arcane and Divine casters, Spontaneous and Prepared casters. Then WotC came out with a few other systems, other solutions to the same problem. That's offering choice. Though I do think that sometimes too much choice is a bad thing in game design. Especially when, like the EPH, it's simply carrying on legacy concepts from earlier editions and not particularly well supported in other material. The bad part is people assuming that because the material is there, they have to use it.

There's a reason core is called core. It's because that's the assumed default, the framework that the game hangs on. There's a core mechanic in D20 and there's two core approaches to casting. Psionics isn't one of them. Even the iconic creatures in the core rules that use Psionics, Aboleths and Illithids, don't have their abilities referred to in terms of psionic powers. Instead they get the Special Abilities of Psionics (Sp). Which are then given spell effects. And both have a higher CR variant that uses magic as described in the PHB. And there's no suggestion in the core rules that any other option is there for them.

Which tells me that the EPH is an optional add-on. The only support it gets is itself. Even Lord of Madness only mentions the EPH in side bars. Which again tells me that WotC didn't regard that book as paticularly important.

[alisbin]

i don't see how theres any real work to do saph...
here, i'll give you a paragraph that will make magic and psionics completely compatible.
"psionic characters use the magic that comes from their own bodies to manipulate themselves and the world around them, what they do is still magical, but psionic creatures have created a culture that has endowed such abilities with a different terminology. beyond name, any skills or abilities that effect spells or magic also effect psionics or vice versa, unless specifically stated in the rules."

there, no change to your game in any way except now you can use psionics if someone would like to. the fluff has been unified and all you've done is speak for 30 seconds.

[Saph]

I've always believed it was because people may choose the psionics are different option, despite being very, very, very emphasised in the book itself that that's a very large hassle; but included them for completion's sake.

I'd say it's because they wrote 3.5 psionics effectively as a replacement for arcane magic. If they'd wanted them to fit comfortably together they wouldn't have copy-pasted half the Magic section of the 3.5 SRD.

There's no reason to have UMD and UPD and Psicraft and Spellcraft unless you want it to be a hassle to use the two systems interchangeably. This suggests to me that they were specifically trying to make them less compatible with each other.

[Tavar]

Um, there's aren't 4 different mechanics in the PHB, there's one, with a slight subcatagory. Arcane and Divine don't offer different mechanics, not really. And Again, spontaneous is a subcategory of a unified mechanic, not a different mechanic altogether.

I'd say it's because they wrote 3.5 psionics effectively as a replacement for arcane magic. If they'd wanted them to fit comfortably together they wouldn't have copy-pasted half the Magic section of the 3.5 SRD.

There's no reason to have UMD and UPD and Psicraft and Spellcraft unless you want it to be a hassle to use the two systems interchangeably. This suggests to me that they were specifically trying to make them less compatible with each other.

Except that they have the optional variant to have them be different and not interact. One that they specifically warn against due to possible problems, but one that they acknowledge exists.

Plus, you're basically saying that "If I start by houseruling that they're different, then I have to do a lot of work in order to make them fit". Why not just not make the houserule in the first place?

[Optimystik]

Psionics is worse at: Illusion, Necromancy, some Conjuration (Healing and Calling.)

Psionics is better at: Evocation (multi-use powers), Transmutation (Bonus Actions, shapeshifting - objects as well as creatures), Divination (multiple ways to defeat anti-scrying measures), some Conjuration (transportation - especially via time).

I'd say that's different enough for psionics not to be just "componentless magic."

[Saph]

Plus, you're basically saying that "If I start by houseruling that they're different, then I have to do a lot of work in order to make them fit". Why not just not make the houserule in the first place?

I really can't figure out what you're trying to say. By RAW, psionics and magic ARE different - that's why you can't identify spells with Psicraft. "Psionics-magic transparency" is a misleading name.

[The Big Dice]

Psionics is worse at: Illusion

Mind powers that aren't very good at affecting perception and thought aren't mind powers. It's blasting with pretty names.

You would think that if there's one field psionics would excel in, it's Illusions. You know, putting images into people's minds.

[Tavar]

I really can't figure out what you're trying to say. By RAW, psionics and magic ARE different - that's why you can't identify spells with Psicraft. "Psionics-magic transparency" is a misleading name.

I'm saying that those 2 kills are the only things making them at all incompatible. If you just state that "Psicraft=Spellcraft, UPD=UMD", then there's the entire problem, gone. There's not fluff reason why they aren't compatible, and besides those 2 skills they work together completely. So where's this big, difficult to solve difference you're talking about?

[Saph]

I'm saying that those 2 kills are the only things making them at all incompatible. If you just state that "Psicraft=Spellcraft, UPD=UMD", then there's the entire problem, gone. There's not fluff reason why they aren't compatible, and besides those 2 skills they work together completely. So where's this big, difficult to solve difference you're talking about?

*shrug* If that's what works for you.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Which tells me that the EPH is an optional add-on. The only support it gets is itself. Even Lord of Madness only mentions the EPH in side bars. Which again tells me that WotC didn't regard that book as paticularly important.

That's because everything aside from core is an optional add-on. One of the major complaints people had about late 3e was the fact that WotC stubbornly stuck to the philosophy that core material should receive more options because everyone had it and non-core shouldn't because some might not. Things like psionics, binders, martial adepts, etc. didn't get any additional support even though they were fairly popular; classes like the marshal and soulknife remained sub-par because WotC ignored them; casters outside of core rarely had their spells lists expanded; and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, the strongest classes in the game (wizards, clerics, and druids, oh my) continued to get support in almost every single book, regardless of the fact that they didn't need the help, because "that's what everybody plays with." Core getting support while non-core doesn't is a bad thing, a very bad thing. Many imbalances in 3e are the result of the devs never considering the interactions between books due to this focus on core; even for a company that seems practically allergic to playtesting, ignoring all but 3 of your products when producing new material is just bad.

Mind powers that aren't very good at affecting perception and thought aren't mind powers. It's blasting with pretty names.

You would think that if there's one field psionics would excel in, it's Illusions. You know, putting images into people's minds.

Illusions aren't mental projections except when it comes to phantasms; they're free-standing constructs similar to holograms. Psionics does do mental manipulation with things like cloud mind and microcosm, it's the major image/illusory script/silence kind of illusion for which it's inferior to magic.

[taltamir]

it seems to me that the problem with psionics is that it is a whole new book and is not integrated with phb... a whole new magic system. (the new age crystals flavor doesn't help though)...

the most typical thing I see is "my DM doesn't allow psionics because he doesn't have the time to learn it"
It being a seperate book dedicated to itself rather then a part of the "core" game puts it at a huge disadvantage... its a big enough time investment learning the core classes, especially the arcane and divine magic systems found in core.
Adding a third whole new magic system, learning it from an entire book (vs arcane and divine which merely take a portion of the phb), it seems like way too much effort to put forth.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Adding a third whole new magic system, learning it from an entire book (vs arcane and divine which merely take a portion of the phb), it seems like way too much effort to put forth.

To be fair, it's a whole new book because the whole point is to introduce psionics. Spells take up about 1/2 the PHB; if you divided it up into PHB 1 (noncasters and mundane monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), PHB 2 (casters and magical monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), and PHB 3 (psionics and psionic monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), they'd be all about the same size. For the lack of integration with core and the use of (Sp) for core "psionic" monsters, see my above rant on WotC shortsightedness.

[tyckspoon]

specially the arcane and divine magic systems found in core.
Adding a third whole new magic system, learning it from an entire book (vs arcane and divine which merely take a portion of the phb), it seems like way too much effort to put forth.

Second system; divine and arcane don't have enough differences to call them different magic systems. You might call it a third system if you consider the Sorcerer to represent a significantly different system from the pre-selected spell slots used by Wizards, Clerics, and Druids.

[taltamir]

To be fair, it's a whole new book because the whole point is to introduce psionics. Spells take up about 1/2 the PHB; if you divided it up into PHB 1 (noncasters and mundane monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), PHB 2 (casters and magical monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), and PHB 3 (psionics and psionic monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), they'd be all about the same size. For the lack of integration with core and the use of (Sp) for core "psionic" monsters, see my above rant on WotC shortsightedness.

that might all be true... but thats not how most DMs and or players see it.
The way WOTC presented it, its a "Why bother".

I mean, there are just so MANY different magic styles... arcane, divine, psionics, bindings, trunaming, etc etc.
I have never had a DM that allowed psionics... because every one of them said he couldn't be bothered to learn the system.
I haven't really read it myself actually...
nor has most people I played with.

[Optimystik]

Mind powers that aren't very good at affecting perception and thought aren't mind powers. It's blasting with pretty names.

You would think that if there's one field psionics would excel in, it's Illusions. You know, putting images into people's minds.

Actually, what you're referring to is merely a subset of illusion - Patterns and Phantasms. Psionics can actually approximate those fairly well, because there isn't a whole lot of difference between those and enchantment. In both cases, you're making the subject (or subjects) react to something that doesn't exist by planting it in their heads.

The illusion that Psionics is bad at approximating, is the external kind - Figments, Shadows, and Glamers, that arise by manipulating light and other sensation. So no Silent Images, no Shadow Conjurations, and no Invisibility.

[Tavar]

*shrug* If that's what works for you.

So, are you going to answer my question?

Sure. I could do the work to make psionics and magic effectively the same system, and rewrite the fluff appropriately, and explain these houserules to all my players. Or, I could only use one or the other.

Specifically, here(and elsewhere), you refer to it being a big problem to fix the incompatibilities. I think I've shown that the incompatibilities can be solved with 6 words ("Psicraft=Spellcraft, UPD=UMD"). So are their other incompatibilities? If not, what's the reason that you don't like/allow psionics?

[Oslecamo]

You also just pointed out that you need to spend lots of feats to force standard magic to fit into different concepts; and trying to work through system mastery and many more splat-books to make it do what you want it to. In other words: Jump through hoops. You can't do it out of the box.

Not really. Core enough adds plenty of options. One or two good splatbooks greatly increase that variety. Psionic handbook by itself doesn't give as much versatility as psion fans claim.

No, by that argument Pun-pun is not the only viable build. It's true that you could use "pun-pun" to mechanically represent virtually anything; unless you wanted to flavor your character as something other than a character (Paladin preferably) who sold their goodness to Pazuzu for godly powers and what-not. Also, Pun-pun is not a system; Pun-pun is an theoretical abuse of a lot of different rules and optional material.

It's a group of builds wich seek to give your character infinite power. And it can be done in core with wish loops.

In fact, I wasn't arguing over builds or anything of the sort. I was merely showing that for a variety of character concepts psionics can in fact mimic large portions of magic, and can be used to deal with a wide variety of concepts without needing the aforementioned hoop jumping. You're arguing nothing, and nothing is what you're arguing against.

You're completely right. I'm indeed arguing against nothing, since psionics can't actually mimic large portions of magic and wide variety of concepts, since you're only pretending you have the limitations, and your psion will never be stoped from manifesting if tied and gagged.

You're taking it out of context. Bring it back into context then debate it if you wish, but don't pull BS like that because it's just foolish. Common sense man.

We're disccussing if dudes who can alter reality with just thinking minds are the same as dudes who can alter reality with chanting and weird gestures/components. Common sense was thrown out of the window screaming long ago.

Yep, lots of ways to twist the system to make it work for you. Mithril armor, spending feats or using prestige classes to cast in armor, or entering into a variety of prestige classes from different splat-books and so forth.

Again, you're also arguing something I'm not. I never suggested that a fighter/wizard or fighter/psion was even on equal terms with a strait-wizard or strait-psion (well, especially not a strait wizard). I was pointing out that you don't have to spend lots of feats and resources to succeed at being weaker. Instead, you can make a better mage-knight.

No you can't. A well built gish can actualy end up as good if not stronger than a straight wizard.

Also, cleric-fighter has lots of synergy, but also requires you to hold your holy symbol and be a cleric (with everything that comes with).

Have your weapon/shield be your holy symbol. Or buff yourself before drawing your weapon. Or use a light shield to keep your hand free. Or use spells that don't demand focus. How hard is it?

It also doesn't do much if you want to throw around fireballs and similar things; or pull off cool magic-tricks beyond personal buffs, self-heals, or various save-based spells. Though truthfully if I was discussing builds, I'd skip fighter altogether and just be a cleric.

Or I could just play a Psychic Warrior and be a default-gish. Alternatively, I'm fond of Psion 8 / Ranger 2 / Slayer 10 for a BAB +16 gish with decent saves and solid casting/manifesting. But I'm speaking in terms of what we can do here with this system; not specific builds.

So, why do you ignore what you can do with core?

That being said, it would be entirely possible to completely trash core magic and add new psionic powers (using the psionic system guidelines) to create psionic versions of spells like animate dead or polymorph any object or cure wounds. Such things were left out for specific reasons, but could be added to the system in one afternoon.

Easy to say. Much MUCH harder to do. There's hundreds of homebrew projects out there, and I have yet to see one that does that, yet alone in a single afternoon. It would probably be easier to fix core than to fill psionic holes, and we've been trying to fix core for over a decade now.

You want to play a spell-sword without jumping through hoops? Play a X/Psion; or a Psychic Warrior. You want to play a blastey caster who doesn't suck by default (but is limited in cheese), play a Psion or Wilder.

Or play a straight cleric. Or a straight sorceror. And bother to pick the right feats and spells. Just like your psion would need to pick his own feats and powers. No jumping trough more hoops than psionics, and you don't need to learn a whole new system!

Yes, if you remove core casting completely, then you would need to add more powers and options into the Psionics system. It can in fact handle such options very effectively; whereas the reverse is not as true.

Again, easy talk, much harder when you try to actualy do it. If it was as easy as you say, someone would've done it by now.

That's funny indeed because I just pointed out the entire gist of the psionics system in my previous posts. Also, this friend of a friend arguments amuse me. Lots of people screw up using magic too. I've had people accidentally have too few spells per day, or too many. Or people who think you get 2nd level spells at 2nd level and 3rd level at 3rd. Mistakes are made everywhere.

I would say that it's much easier to miss the manifester limit rule than to miss a whole table, but meh, since you missed several other core stuff, I'll take your word for it.

I'd like you to explain to me how it's harder to learn, since I just summed up the system in my previous post. I explained your bonus spell/PP, your resources, and how you use them in a single paragraph; then gave an example of the learning curve following it.

At the very least, it's not harder to learn that standard magic; and in my experiences has been infinitely easier to teach new players than standard spell-casting. One player in my group loves playing barbarians and psions; hates wizards and clerics. Is in the middle with bards and sorcerers. He despises preparation based casting, and when he doesn't have the option for psionics generally just plays a warrior or maybe a bard. He finds them too confusing and convoluted, lacking in sense, and annoying. Another at our table, who loves Wizards endlessly and has never played a Psion at all, hates the way sorcerers cast spells almost like wizards. He hates that they're supposed to be drawing their power from a raw source, not just memorizing it or having "spontaneous memorization". He says Psions are better sorcerers.

And now we bring simple statistics, and see there's a lot more people out there using magic than psionics. If psionic problems are so easily bypassed, why is it so?

Hmmm. I didn't remember Naruto being a construct, but I'll take your word for it. Rock Lee was human if I recall though. What's better though? Technically wizards can do everything that everyone can do ever; but how easy is it to make it work? What's your idea of better?

My idea of "better" is that psionic Naruto didn't only end up with a lot of non-human traits due to his exotic race, he could be tied up and gagged/under water/grappled/silenced/his limbs cut off and still be able to use his ninja tecquniques no problem.

[lesser_minion]

Actually, they kinda are. There are many spells and rules that are balanced due to difficult to acquire components. Need we remind you why the Spell-to-power Eurdite is considered so broken?

Mental Pinnacle is one of the biggest problems.

Still, costly material components that form part of the balancing have to be replaced with an XP component in order to fit with psionics. I'll concede that.

Verbal, somatic, 'free' material components, and foci do little more in-game than add a weakness to the character (that many DMs are hesitant to actually bring into play for various reasons) and compromise stealth (which can be done equally well using the effects of the spell). Or make people cringe at the bad jokes.

Why?

For a player or a DM, there is no obvious difference. At least, nothing direct. From our end, the only problems were the lack of support, and the (possible) need to teach new players another system (which isn't especially horrible, as a lot of the groundwork is laid already once a player knows how to use magic).

For the designer, it's different.

It becomes harder to support a game the more subsystems there are. Each time you add a subsystem to the game, you add to the amount of material you need to support.

Since you can only produce so much content, you have to divide your attention (or simply forget about one or more of the systems).

When there are a lot of fluff similarities between the subsystems, this becomes a problem, because a piece of content that is appropriate for one subsystem is also appropriate for the other.

Converting one piece of content from one subsystem to another takes effort - but has little benefit. The new content might have added something interesting. Converting it adds a cross-reference.

So you get the highly appealing choice between denying one system some content (viewed from WotC's perspective, this makes it less useful as an incentive to buy later supplements), or producing a supplement that costs more and is lower-quality.

So yes, psionics is a very good system, and well worth including in games. Maybe it wouldn't be better if it had used spellcasting as a jumping-off point. But the support just might have been.

[Optimystik]

Not really. Core enough adds plenty of options. One or two good splatbooks greatly increase that variety. Psionic handbook by itself doesn't give as much versatility as psion fans claim.

I don't think you'll find anyone that seriously claims that psionics has as much versatility as magic.

You're completely right. I'm indeed arguing against nothing, since psionics can't actually mimic large portions of magic and wide variety of concepts, since you're only pretending you have the limitations, and your psion will never be stoped from manifesting if tied and gagged.

To paraphrase Xykon: If your power can be taken away with a handkerchief and some rope, you never really had power to begin with, now did you?

What's wrong with psionics working while restrained? (And if you have Hyperconscious, working while you're incapacitated or unconscious.) I personally find it ridiculous that a character with the power to manipulate reality itself should be turned into a commoner by taking his bag of knickknacks away and covering his mouth.

[The Big Dice]

The illusion that Psionics is bad at approximating, is the external kind - Figments, Shadows, and Glamers, that arise by manipulating light and other sensation. So no Silent Images, no Shadow Conjurations, and no Invisibility.

If you can't induce a false sensation, whether it be any of the five senses, or suppress either senses or persception, it's not really a mental power at all. Cartoony zap-boom stuff doesn't really make for good mind powers.

And to be fair, D&D (and in fact most fantasy gaming) has extremely cartoony magic. GURPS Psionics has psi powers that are more grounded in things like remote viewing and the kind of applications you see in fiction for psi. D&D psionics, other than having coined the most uncomfortable word in gaming (psionicists) is just another way of generating cartoon style effects that usually just do damage or help out combat in other ways. But with a different book keeping system.

It's not thematically needed as a rule set, nor is it different enough to warrant inclusion in fantasy games.

[NEO|Phyte]

Emphasis mine. It points to a single attack which automatically crits.

Depends on your interpretation. If you assume that this crit follows all the standard rules for critical hits, and merely automatically succeeds (circumventing the need for a roll), then there is a threat. There is certainly nothing in the power description to contradict this interpretation.

RAW, you have to roll a threat to trigger Lighting Mace. No roll, no threat, no extra attack. Like how the d2 Crusader can't just use a weapon with 1 base damage, because there's no roll to trigger the loop.

[Saph]

So, are you going to answer my question?

Probably not, no. I'd just be repeating myself.

[Terazul]

To make things more annoying, converting a spell to a power takes effort - but has little benefit. The new spell might have added something interesting. Converted to a power, it adds a cross-reference.

Well y'know. Unless you're an Erudite.

[taltamir]

I don't think you'll find anyone that seriously claims that psionics has as much versatility as magic.

pathfinder authors do.

[Optimystik]

If you can't induce a false sensation, whether it be any of the five senses, or suppress either senses or persception, it's not really a mental power at all.

Um, Psionics can do all of those things. They just do it by acting directly on the target's mind, rather than manipulating the characteristics of external objects.

It's not thematically needed as a rule set, nor is it different enough to warrant inclusion in fantasy games.

I'm so very glad WotC disagrees with such a narrow-minded opinion.

pathfinder authors do.

I'll have to take your word for it, since I have no intention of playing Pathfinder. (Weren't we discussing D&D?)