[D&D 3.5] Psionics as a vancian replacement

[Ernir]

There are quite a few people on this forum who like psionics, preferring to play manifesters over the PHB spellcasters. That is cool. But I am looking for something different.

Those of you who don't think psionic characters make suitable arcane/divine spellcaster replacements, why is that? As in, if I were to rip out the Wizard entry in the PHB, put in the XPH Psion entry instead, and rename the Psion "Wizard", what is it that would bother you the most? What is it that you would find missing? Particular spells that don't have psionic equivalents, the fact that psions can manifest in armor, or all the crystals psions like lobbing around?

(I ask, because in one of my campaign settings, the organized study of arcane magic is rare, and so is direct attention by the gods. In a situation like that, Psions and Ardents make rather natural fills for the societal roles of Wizards and Clerics, in my opinion. I am looking for the flaws it entails.)

[Optimystik]

As a lover of psionics, I'm not the person you wanted to hear from... but I just wanted to point out that Mystics (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) can fill the "divine caster" niche in your setting without requiring deities' attention.

Not trying to dissuade you from psionics, just pointing out that there are indeed divine alternatives to Ardents. Carry on

[Saph]

Well, the main issue would be that psionics isn't Vancian. It's a version of spontaneous casting, ie Sorcerer or Favoured Soul. A psion can substitute for a Sorcerer, but they play totally differently from a Wizard.

[Ernir]

As a lover of psionics, I'm not the person you wanted to hear from...

How dare you speak!

Nah, it's mostly that I know there's a bunch of people out there that doesn't like psionics for one reason or another, knowing the potential sources of dislike might make it easier for me to serve it at my table.

but I just wanted to point out that Mystics (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) can fill the "divine caster" niche in your setting without requiring deities' attention.

Not trying to dissuade you from psionics, just pointing out that there are indeed divine alternatives to Ardents. Carry on

Huh. Interesting.

I really got to get my hands on the DCS.

[balistafreak]

Biggest difference between Wizards and Psions is that Wizards can more easily acquire one-off odd spells and keep them.

Psions have a lot of powers known, but if they want Curse of the Werechicken for some plot reason, tough luck. The Wizard can scribe it into his spellbook and prepare it the one time he needs to, and then have it ready the next time he wants it, whether a day or year later.

Although single-use items/wands work for both, so yeah.

[NEO|Phyte]

Biggest difference between Wizards and Psions is that Wizards can more easily acquire one-off odd spells and keep them.

Erudite? Technically still a psion.

[balistafreak]

Quiet you, Erudite is ridiculous.

[Snake-Aes]

How dare you speak!

Nah, it's mostly that I know there's a bunch of people out there that doesn't like psionics for one reason or another, knowing the potential sources of dislike might make it easier for me to serve it at my table.


Huh. Interesting.

I really got to get my hands on the DCS.

The most common alternative to vancian that i know and isn't mana is spellcraft.
Casting the spelll is a spellcraft check, provided you know the spell.
The dc varies per spell level.
The point of a caster class, in this system, is fatigue. Casting spells deals nonlethal damage to your character, and casters have a pool of "casting hp" that refreshes every round for the spells to consume. Here, akin to psionics, metamagic implies an increase in cost.

This method's pros are: Metamagic is not restricted by level, but by how much you are willing to harm yourself.
Noncasters can also cast spells, albeit at a cost.
Different casters are flavored by their knowledge of metamagic, spell learning and soaking pools.

[NEO|Phyte]

Quiet you, Erudite is ridiculous.

It's still the closest to a proper wizard you can get out of psionics (outside of StP, at which point it basically IS a wizard.)

[fryplink]

Well, the main issue would be that psionics isn't Vancian. It's a version of spontaneous casting, ie Sorcerer or Favoured Soul. A psion can substitute for a Sorcerer, but they play totally differently from a Wizard.

I could be totally mistaken, but don't erudites help some in this degree?

they can add more powers to their repertoire (Complete psionic)

[Saph]

I could be totally mistaken, but don't erudites help some in this degree?

they can add more powers to their repertoire (Complete psionic)

Could be. I've never looked at them, as I only ever hear them discussed in the context of how-can-I-break-the-game theoretical optimisation.

[Fouredged Sword]

When a psion needs that plot spell, he can pull it out of a stone without burning the stone out. He can use his own power points. This makes a great dramatic moment as the rest of the party must defend the psion for the three rounds it takes to pull this off.

[lsfreak]

I could be totally mistaken, but don't erudites help some in this degree?

they can add more powers to their repertoire (Complete psionic)

I haven't looked very hard into erudites, but my understanding is that there are three different interpretations, thanks to strange wording: one is broken in the underpowered sense, one is among the best of T1, and one is utterly broken. No matter what, you need a bit of houseruling to get eridutes to actually work well.

[erikun]

If you are talking about the "unique number of powers from any level each day" interpretation, then it is quite restrictive, although perhaps not necessarily in need of a houserule. Yes, you are stuck with an incredibly small number of different powers each day (only five at 9th level) but that just means being very selective over which powers you use and hanging onto useful djores and power stones. I'd say that is almost exactly the point of the class, seeing as they are supposed to be the equal of a psionic wizard, judiciously conserving which spells to use.

It certainly wouldn't be for everyone, but then again, the Psion is still available.

[Zaq]

The only thing I'd really miss are Illusion spells. But then, I like psionics anyway.

[Optimystik]

Could be. I've never looked at them, as I only ever hear them discussed in the context of how-can-I-break-the-game theoretical optimisation.

The variants are indeed powerful, but the base Erudite is no stronger than a Psion.

Even using the most restrictive UPD... it is equal to a Wilder, and has access to discipline powers, plus one more bonus feat than a psion. In fact, it pairs immensely well with other psionic classes - they can pull whatever utility powers they need out of his head, and he can concentrate on battle powers.

[Analytica]

When a psion needs that plot spell, he can pull it out of a stone without burning the stone out. He can use his own power points. This makes a great dramatic moment as the rest of the party must defend the psion for the three rounds it takes to pull this off.

According to Complete Psionics, you actually can't.

[Eldan]

What's lacking for me is the scholarly archetype.

Wizards by the rules (not talking about fluff here, that's too mutable by the DM), gain their spells by copying them from ancient texts. Instant scholar.

Psions just... get them. Somehow.

[Snake-Aes]

that'd be the erudite psion.

[Nero24200]

Making a "Psion wizard" might take a fair bit of homebrewing. You could add a mechanic similer to the Truenamer Research - such a mechanic would reward the class for researching and delving into hidden lore, thus making a "Scholary Type". Or something similer to Bardic Knowledge.

[Kobold-Bard]

Use the sensible reading of Erudite and it replaces the Wizard just fine. You get bonus Feats, take Extra Unique Power if you want more.

Homebrew a Feat that lets them release a locked power 1/day or something and they're perfect.

It's lack of Healing that bugs me about replacing Vancians with Psionics. They just can't do it well enough.

(6)

[Prime32]

It's lack of Healing that bugs me about replacing Vancians with Psionics. They just can't do it well enough.

You could easily adapt a cure wounds, psionic from repair damage, psionic (since the cure and repair spells are identical apart from their targets).

[AustontheGreat1]

The most common alternative to vancian that i know and isn't mana is spellcraft.
Casting the spelll is a spellcraft check, provided you know the spell.
The dc varies per spell level.
The point of a caster class, in this system, is fatigue. Casting spells deals nonlethal damage to your character, and casters have a pool of "casting hp" that refreshes every round for the spells to consume. Here, akin to psionics, metamagic implies an increase in cost.

This method's pros are: Metamagic is not restricted by level, but by how much you are willing to harm yourself.
Noncasters can also cast spells, albeit at a cost.
Different casters are flavored by their knowledge of metamagic, spell learning and soaking pools.

I don't suppose you could tell me where to find an elaboration on this? It sounds interesting and I'd like to see how it works in detail.

[Snake-Aes]

I don't suppose you could tell me where to find an elaboration on this? It sounds interesting and I'd like to see how it works in detail.

You'll have to give me the day here. I don't remember exactly where I saw it and am heading to work now so it's a tight schedule.

[lesser_minion]

Psionics has two main problems, IMO:

1. Psionics clash horribly with traditional spellcasting -- particularly with sorcerers, which are the same thing with different rules.
2. "Magic point" systems are trite, boring, and overused.

Problem 1 is obviously irrelevant here, since we're replacing traditional spellcasting with psionics.

Problem 2 is more relevant, but nothing can really be done about it. Magic point systems are common because they can work, and because they are extremely easy to understand and implement. Functional > Original.

The thing that really gets in the way of this variant is the same thing Saph pointed out -- a large amount of material may have to change as a result.

[Saph]

But anyway, back to the OP:

Those of you who don't think psionic characters make suitable arcane/divine spellcaster replacements, why is that? As in, if I were to rip out the Wizard entry in the PHB, put in the XPH Psion entry instead, and rename the Psion "Wizard", what is it that would bother you the most? What is it that you would find missing? Particular spells that don't have psionic equivalents, the fact that psions can manifest in armor, or all the crystals psions like lobbing around?

My basic issue with Psionics is that it's a fifth wheel. Pretty much everything that psionic characters can do, magic-using characters can do anyway. Psionics does add an interesting set of new mechanics, but too many of the psionic powers are just PHB spells with the serial numbers filed off and some vague fluff about ectoplasm.

The next problem if you're replacing magic with psionics is that loads and loads of the basic material of D&D assumes magic. For instance, about half the creatures in the various Monster Manuals have spell-like-abilities or powers that directly duplicate magic of some kind, and every single magic item in the DMG and most of the items in the Magic Item Compendium use spells for their effects, creation, or mechanics.

Sure, you can rewrite half of D&D to be psionics-based rather than magic-based, but it simply isn't worth the effort, IMO. The basic assumption of pretty much all the published D&D books is that magic is the base system and psionics is an unusual alternative. There are a few campaign settings and adventures out there where the opposite is true, but they're specifically designed to be different.

So it's not that you can't replace magic with psionics, it's just that I don't really think it's worth it.

[Optimystik]

It's lack of Healing that bugs me about replacing Vancians with Psionics. They just can't do it well enough.

They do just as well at it as non-psionic characters - with items.

• "Magic point" systems are trite, boring, and overused.

Problem 2 is more relevant, but nothing can really be done about it. Magic point systems are common because they can work, and because they are extremely easy to understand and implement. Functional > Original.

Despite being point-based, Psionics in D&D still seems pretty unique to me. Lets look at some other point-based "mana" systems:

Final Fantasy
Warcraft
Dragon Age

The cost for the powers in all three systems is fixed; there's no augmentation, and no tying the amount you can spend to your level. In all three of the above, you start with a lower-level spell (say, Fire1) with a fixed cost and trade it out for more damaging and costly spells as you progress (Fire2, Fire3). Which themselves are fixed. Once you get way up there, there's no reason to use your lower-leveled powers except to save some mana (and Warcraft, through MP cost scaling, removes even that justification.) They can thus advertise on the box "Over 100 spells!" and be perfectly true, despite the fact that you probably won't be using more than 12 of them.

But Psionics is the opposite; low-level powers are always useful, because you get to control how much you augment them or not. That Energy Ray? stays relevant all the way through your career; you never have to worry about "Energy Ray1, Energy Ray2" etc. Better yet, you also never have to worry about "FireEnergyRay, IceEnergyRay, ElectricEnergyRay" again thanks to the brilliant way psionic blasting was designed. Again, this is a shortcoming of the three mana-based systems above that psionics does not share.

So I disagree - psionics is plenty unique, even among point-based systems - which means it is unique in general.

[Oslecamo]

So I disagree - psionics is plenty unique, even among point-based systems - which means it is unique in general.

Masters of Magic would like to have a word with you, since it already included the mana+augmentation system and lighting bolt stayed usefull all game long as you could pump up to 50 mana into it to one shot pretty much anything in 1994, while 3e psionics came out only in 2000. Unless augmentation already existed in 2e D&D.

But why it didn't get popular in later "mana" games? Simple. Because augmentation breeds nova mentality. Why bother with channeling as few mana as possible? Just charge your lazers to the max and kill the enemy as fast as possible. Then if you happen to run out of "mana" just take a rest.

Sure, you can cap the number of points you can spend, but then there's no advantage compared to "fire1/2/3" system, in particular when the characters automatically upgrade the spells, while the psionics have to manually upgrade them. You'll want to pump them to the max anyway. What you see as a shortcoming most people see as an advantage, since I don't need to always be calculating how much points I can pump in a spell. Most people always want to fire the lazers at maximum power.

[Runestar]

I feel the psion is fairly balanced as is, since the powers were specifically designed with the power point system in mind.

The spell point variant in UA would be problematic though, since it heavily favours SoDs/debuffs over direct damage.

[Snake-Aes]

I feel the psion is fairly balanced as is, since the powers were specifically designed with the power point system in mind.

The spell point variant in UA would be problematic though, since it heavily favours SoDs/debuffs over direct damage.

:p vancian spells already do that too.