Why the hate on the Psion class?

[Max_Killjoy]

Some iterations of Psionics have also had the problem of "if you're not psionic yourself, you might as well not even bother trying to defend against psionics", which tends to really torque some gamers. It's a specific example of the more general problem of psionics being "tacked on" -- the interaction with the rest of the system isn't integrated into the system from the start.

[Mastikator]

Some iterations of Psionics have also had the problem of "if you're not psionic yourself, you might as well not even bother trying to defend against psionics", which tends to really torque some gamers. It's a specific example of the more general problem of psionics being "tacked on" -- the interaction with the rest of the system isn't integrated into the system from the start.

But again this is just as true for "conventional" magic. How does a fighter tackle being contained in a resilient sphere? The answer is: his spell casting friend bails him out. Why is magic given a free pass and psionics not?

[gkathellar]

But again this is just as true for "conventional" magic. How does a fighter tackle being contained in a resilient sphere? The answer is: his spell casting friend bails him out. Why is magic given a free pass and psionics not?

Because magic is generally a core part of the genre, while systems labeling themselves psionic tend to present as something extra stapled to the side of it.

[Max_Killjoy]

But again this is just as true for "conventional" magic. How does a fighter tackle being contained in a resilient sphere? The answer is: his spell casting friend bails him out. Why is magic given a free pass and psionics not?

I didn't say it wasn't ever a problem. Where spellcasting gives no or little chance of evasion, defense, resistance, or counter-measure to non-spellcasters, and non-spellcasters make up part of the possible PC build space, the system has a problem.

Psionics in some editions seemed to have that problem but cranked up to 11, both because the psionics needed to resist psionics was even more rare, and because the psionic powers seemed to more commonly feature no hope of resistance by non-psionics.

[Particle_Man]

In 3.5 there was psionic/magic transparency so that whatever resisted magic could resist psionics and vice-versa (a few feats broke the rule and allowed a bonus vs psionic attacks but not magical ones, but that doesn’t make magic weaker so doesn’t affect your argument).

Alas the sins of the fathers (earlier editions) leads to distrust of this and future versions.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Because magic is generally a core part of the genre, while systems labeling themselves psionic tend to present as something extra stapled to the side of it.

Weren't psions in the core book once? I think it was in 4th edition.

[johnbragg]

Either psionics is pretty much the same as spellcasting, or it's really different.

If it's pretty much the same, then you have the question of why it's worth it to deal with a new and separate subsystem with different rules and quirks and balance issues and bad splats that ends up doing the same thing. Unless it's really just spells re-skinned, in which case it's just a question of fitting it into the campaign world (sort of like kung fu monks in most settings).

3.5 Warlocks, and Tome of Battle classes were pretty much casting spells, so no real argument there (except that it was too anime, or that fighters should never have nice things, or that fighters should be "realistic".)

If it's really different, then it's probably either underpowered or wildly overpowered compared to the magic systems players and DMs are used to dealing with.

I'm pretty sure that you could play a 3rd edition "psionicist" without the psionics rules, just using the UA Spell Points Variant with a sorcerer, choosing spells thematically.

[LordEntrails]

people say they don't fit the setting, ...
1- I think they totally fit the setting. ...
When I picture a Psion I picture a ...
...
How are those two aesthetics ever capable of overlapping?

3- Being weird is the whole point of Psions.
...
So overall I really don't get what the deal is.

Which setting? Their are hundred of D&D settings. Some they fit, some they don't.

So you have a specific pictures of psions and wizards and settings, and anything that doesn't fit your image is wrong? And why do you insist psions must be wierd?

That's BS.

So anyone who has an imagination or opinion that is different than your belittle and invalidate them like a bully?

Who cares about that?

Obviously lots of people do. Just because you don't doesn't make them wrong. Bully.

But keeping track of psi points is way easier than spell slots, if anything it's an excuse to finally free yourself from that awful vancian magic system and just use spell points.

That's just mechanics. Nothing conceptually core to either vancian or spell points. So not really that relevant is it? I mean since you can establish mechanics for both magic and psionic systems that use either method...

Some iterations of Psionics have also had the problem of "if you're not psionic yourself, you might as well not even bother trying to defend against psionics", which tends to really torque some gamers. It's a specific example of the more general problem of psionics being "tacked on" -- the interaction with the rest of the system isn't integrated into the system from the start.

^^ This is a big part of it. Those of us who have been around long enough have seen significant problems with the implementation of psionics. Not that they can't be done well. Not that they can't fit the setting. But often times they are just added as another way to do virtually the same thing. Many systems have not really distinguished why psionics are unique and many times they just feel like magic in a sci-fi setting.

[Particle_Man]

I like the idea of replacing arcane magic with psionics (including points) and leaving divine as vancian to emphasis a difference between the two. But that is a flavour thing.

I guess I should mention Dark Sun as a setting that was official and also put psionics front and centre. Alas it started in 2nd ed AD&D.

Also, I think the shaper in 3.5 brought something new to the table - customizable temporary allies, for one thing.

[Velaryon]

I used to ban psionics entirely from my games. Nowadays, I just give the player a dirty look and begrudgingly let them do it. Thankfully, I have only one player among my regular group who even likes psionics, and he doesn't do it super often.

For me, the issue is that using psionics and Vancian casting together seems redundant to me. The differences in fluff seem like splitting hairs to me, and most of the psionic powers more or less duplicate existing spells. So why have two systems that mostly do the same things?

From a mechanics point of view, it feels less uniquely D&D, and more like the standard MP system from most video games. That has an advantage in simplicity, but also makes me feel like I'm playing Final Fantasy with dice. So I choose to use Vancian casting instead.

[Millstone85]

Weren't psions in the core book once? I think it was in 4th edition.

Well, 4e put them in a core book, the PHB3.

[Max_Killjoy]

As a general thing, not just D&D, I'd prefer to see the various "extraordinary means of manipulating the world" more unified, rather than the grab-bag approach of disconnected arcane magic, divine magic, sorta both/neither magic, internal magic, external magic, chi/ki, psionics, etc, that's been common in D&D.

[S@tanicoaldo]

As a general thing, not just D&D, I'd prefer to see the various "extraordinary means of manipulating the world" more unified, rather than the grab-bag approach of disconnected arcane magic, divine magic, sorta both/neither magic, internal magic, external magic, chi/ki, psionics, etc, that's been common in D&D.

But... But... That's the charm of D&D.

[Honest Tiefling]

But... But... That's the charm of D&D.

For some. The real charm of DnD is the diversity in it's player base, from those who enjoy a tactical battle of strategy and planning, to those who want dramatic storylines, to those who want to kick butt while hanging out with friends. From those who enjoy space fantasy, to high fantasy to grim dark fantasy. From small time stories of a group of talented people protecting a city to a story of demigods battling for the fate of the multiverse. From those who play tieflings to those who don't play tieflings.

If you really like psionics, I dare you to make a setting with disjointed magical/psuedomagical systems can be incorporated in a coherent narrative sense. Shirtless muscular barbarians optional.

[Mechalich]

For me, the issue is that using psionics and Vancian casting together seems redundant to me. The differences in fluff seem like splitting hairs to me, and most of the psionic powers more or less duplicate existing spells. So why have two systems that mostly do the same things?

This. It's worth noting that most of the psionic-themed monsters in D&D, like Illithids and Githyanki, work just fine when their powers are presented as bog standard arcane magic. There is simply no mechanical benefit to having an additional, and different magical system added to gameplay and a significant penalty is applied in the form of additional complexity by doing so. It's perfectly possible to simply apply a psionic label to an arcane caster and then just move on or vice versa.

This sort of thing doesn't just hit psionics, Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, and various other unusual mechanics introduced throughout the 3e run were often derided because they introduced additional mechanical complexity without seemingly producing any major new storytelling options.

[Quertus]

As a general thing, not just D&D, I'd prefer to see the various "extraordinary means of manipulating the world" more unified, rather than the grab-bag approach of disconnected arcane magic, divine magic, sorta both/neither magic, internal magic, external magic, chi/ki, psionics, etc, that's been common in D&D.

But... But... That's the charm of D&D.

What benefit would one get by claiming that Wizards, Clerics, Psionics, Monks, Barbarians, Crusaders, Dragons, Demons, Superman, Green Lantern, Doctor Fate, and my computer all run on the same magic?

Or, rather, what benefit would one get by inventing a single power source, then reinstantiating each member of the above list using that single source?

This. It's worth noting that most of the psionic-themed monsters in D&D, like Illithids and Githyanki, work just fine when their powers are presented as bog standard arcane magic. There is simply no mechanical benefit to having an additional, and different magical system added to gameplay and a significant penalty is applied in the form of additional complexity by doing so. It's perfectly possible to simply apply a psionic label to an arcane caster and then just move on or vice versa.

This sort of thing doesn't just hit psionics, Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, and various other unusual mechanics introduced throughout the 3e run were often derided because they introduced additional mechanical complexity without seemingly producing any major new storytelling options.

What new storytelling options should an additional power source / unusual mechanics produce?

[Max_Killjoy]

What benefit would one get by claiming that Wizards, Clerics, Psionics, Monks, Barbarians, Crusaders, Dragons, Demons, Superman, Green Lantern, Doctor Fate, and my computer all run on the same magic?

Or, rather, what benefit would one get by inventing a single power source, then reinstantiating each member of the above list using that single source?

First, you're conflating genres and categories and settings. Superman is nominally not magic (just comic book stuff), Green Lantern I'm not sure if the lantern and ring are supposed to be magic, Doctor fate is "comic book magic", and computers aren't magic at all.

Second, no one said "single magic and single mechanics for everything".


I'm too mentally spent from issues at the office to explain more right now.

[gkathellar]

Weren't psions in the core book once? I think it was in 4th edition.

They weren't, but even if they had been it wouldn't matter. "Psychic" and "psionic," just as words, are not part of the standard fantasy vocabulary. People hear them and they take away something that isn't quite the the genre norm.

And I really do have to stress, it's all about the words. You can have crystals and mental strain and mind-reading and telekinesis, and as long as you call it magic, people will accept it as Standard Fantasy. It's only once you say, "look, here's something different," that people start to respond as though something is different.

[M Placeholder]

I like the idea of replacing arcane magic with psionics (including points) and leaving divine as vancian to emphasis a difference between the two. But that is a flavour thing.

I guess I should mention Dark Sun as a setting that was official and also put psionics front and centre. Alas it started in 2nd ed AD&D.

In that setting, it was also explained that practioners of "The Way" weren't beholden to a higher power or a set of circumstances that clerical and arcane magic users were.

Templars got their power from one of the Sorcerer Kings/Queens, Clerics served one of 4/8 elements, Druids had to take care of a guarded land and served Spirits of the Land. As for Arcane spellcasters, Defilers and Preservers had to take account of how much plant life was in an area and keep their spellcasting abilities on the downlow most of the time, as misuse of arcane magic had left Athas a burned out wasteland.

In contrast, The Way was a power that could not be taken from a practitioner, and Psions had a lot more freedom in how they used their power and who they were hired by. I liked how the setting stressed how important it was to have a power that was yours and nobody could take away, especially in such a harsh and dangerous setting as Dark Sun.

[Mastikator]

I didn't say it wasn't ever a problem. Where spellcasting gives no or little chance of evasion, defense, resistance, or counter-measure to non-spellcasters, and non-spellcasters make up part of the possible PC build space, the system has a problem.

Psionics in some editions seemed to have that problem but cranked up to 11, both because the psionics needed to resist psionics was even more rare, and because the psionic powers seemed to more commonly feature no hope of resistance by non-psionics.

Right the system has a problem, not psionics. So far I've seen nothing in this thread that can't be rephrased as tradition or taste. The mechanics of psionics are better than vancian spellcasting because they are both simpler and more flexible, AND easier to track.

[Knaight]

A lot of it is residual. The psionic rules basically sucked until 3.5, including a lousy adaptation in 3.0 (albeit a really interesting one that just didn't actually work), and so people tended to dislike it. This also bought D&D enough time to pretend that there was a coherent aesthetic there, and that psionics would somehow violate it - which is, in a word, nonsense. It's been a fantasy kitchen sink from the beginning, a mismash of a bunch of different sources with a soupcon of its own unique weirdness. If there's anything the D&D setting is good at it's taking some new janky thing out of nowhere and tossing it in the massive pile of existing janky things to which it blends right in.

[Max_Killjoy]

Right the system has a problem, not psionics. So far I've seen nothing in this thread that can't be rephrased as tradition or taste. The mechanics of psionics are better than vancian spellcasting because they are both simpler and more flexible, AND easier to track.

I don't disagree when it comes to 5e -- I like "spell points" better than Vancian by far, and that's effectively what the 5e "mystic" uses.

But, the OP's question was "Why the hate on the Psion class?" and my posts continue to be about that, not an argument about which is better and not just an argument about 5e in particular. The reasons for the hate aren't just about 5e's mechanics in isolation, and this thread isn't about 5e specifically.

[M Placeholder]

Another problem that people have alluded to in this thread is that in terms of the 8 schools of magic in D&D, there aren't really any Psionic Disciplines that are sufficiently different to a magic school. Telepathy lines up pretty closely with Enchantment, Clairsentience with Divination, Psychometabolism with Transmutation, Metacreativity with Conjuration, and Psychokinesis with Evocation.

The only one that doesn't have an arcane equivalent that fits closely is Psychoportation. Even then, a lot of the teleportation powers have spells from the Conjuration school that provide similar effects.

[Bohandas]

First, you're conflating genres and categories and settings. Superman is nominally not magic (just comic book stuff)

That's mincing words a bit don't you think?

[Max_Killjoy]

That's mincing words a bit don't you think?

No but I'm running on fumes and really mad about unrelated things, so I hope you'll understand if I answer later.

[Mastikator]

I don't disagree when it comes to 5e -- I like "spell points" better than Vancian by far, and that's effectively what the 5e "mystic" uses.

But, the OP's question was "Why the hate on the Psion class?" and my posts continue to be about that, not an argument about which is better and not just an argument about 5e in particular. The reasons for the hate aren't just about 5e's mechanics in isolation, and this thread isn't about 5e specifically.

I have to admit I'm not familiar with the 5e system. I was mainly using the 3.5 and pathfinder systems as an example of psionics being mechanically superior to vancian magic. But don't take that to be an argument about editions, AFAIK the only D&D that doesn't hamstring itself with vancian magic is the 4th edition.

I think the main valid points one can make is either 1) mechanical elegance and 2) aesthetics 3) the current setting. Imbalance that comes from the system itself and traditional expectations are not good reasons.

[Quertus]

First, you're conflating genres and categories and settings. Superman is nominally not magic (just comic book stuff), Green Lantern I'm not sure if the lantern and ring are supposed to be magic, Doctor fate is "comic book magic", and computers aren't magic at all.

Second, no one said "single magic and single mechanics for everything".


I'm too mentally spent from issues at the office to explain more right now.

Ah. I missed the word "more" when you said "more unified".

And my list wasn't actually random - I've been handed a "Green Lantern power ring" in the amazingly kitchen sink setting called D&D, that goes beyond just published material. And "my computer" explicitly runs off magic per 2e D&D (when brought to a D&D setting, that is).

But, as to what you really meant… I still ask, what benefit would you be seeking in desiring D&D to use "more unified" power sources?

[False God]

Honestly, this is the first time I've seen people suggesting it's because "magic and psionics don't mix thematically". Sure, I see there are differences between the two, but they seem far less stark than the presentation put forth in this thread. Most of the objections I've heard of before were over how broken and OP they were.

I like psionics, if for no other reason than psi-points make worlds more sense to me than Vancian casting. I include them in every game I run. Usually in the form of esoteric sects like monks that isolate themselves from society while they refine their skills. Like martial arts, "psionics" are a form of training the mind and body, their power something of a side-effect of their intended goal of enlightenment.

I've never had a problem with this, though I realize it's not exactly the traditional presentation. The mechanical systems underneath remain identical.

But keeping track of psi points is way easier than spell slots, if anything it's an excuse to finally free yourself from that awful vancian magic system and just use spell points.

God tell me about it. The Psi-points/Spell Points system is so much clearer, smoother and less wasteful than the Vancian system, but there's some kind of weird stigma attached to it and every time I try to run a game that way people scoff or leave.

The lesson I'm getting from this is to say screw all distinction between anime, space fantasy and so on and just make the fantasy I want. and that the only thing holding anything back is making it look "right" to an outside observer. when anything looking "right" is an illusion.

At the end of the day, it's on you to make the various lego blocks you've been given fit together in a coherent fashion. It's on the painter to create a beautiful image. Specific colors don't do it on their own.

It's like ice cream, mint chocolate ice cream is still a valid flavor, but I don't think I'm going to mix it with peanut butter or black sesame ice cream any time soon.

Random comment since I saw this line of yours: Mint Chocolate & peanut-butter, basically mint chocolate chip & Reese's PB cups is an absolutely FANTASTIC combination. I do strongly advise you try it. Might run to the store and get me some now....

[Max_Killjoy]

Ah. I missed the word "more" when you said "more unified".

And my list wasn't actually random - I've been handed a "Green Lantern power ring" in the amazingly kitchen sink setting called D&D, that goes beyond just published material. And "my computer" explicitly runs off magic per 2e D&D (when brought to a D&D setting, that is).

I really didn't have any way of knowing about your character having a power ring and a computer.

But, as to what you really meant… I still ask, what benefit would you be seeking in desiring D&D to use "more unified" power sources?

First, better interaction / meshing between the various classes... monks use "internal magic", some readings of the sorcerer have it using "internal magic", and yet there's no mechanical interaction between the monk's abilities and the sorcerer's abilities, is there? And if you did try to homebrew it, imagine the mess made by merging the monk's Ki and the sorcerer's "spell pool" -- because the two mechanical game subsystems are so different.

Second, because having umpteen fundamentally different sources and methods of magic, without any real underlying framework, just tossed into the kitchen sink, makes for a worldbuilding nightmare (IMO).

That's mincing words a bit don't you think?

All I can say is that the typical gonzo "anything goes" construct of a superheroic comic setting is a perfect example of the potential mess caused by allowing any and ever source of extraordinary power without much thought for how they interact, and then throwing those examples in with the D&D examples... and a computer... is just a recipe for conflicting elements at every layer.

[Mechalich]

Honestly, this is the first time I've seen people suggesting it's because "magic and psionics don't mix thematically". Sure, I see there are differences between the two, but they seem far less stark than the presentation put forth in this thread. Most of the objections I've heard of before were over how broken and OP they were.

D&D psionics don't mix thematically with D&D magic, because the two are built on separate mechanical systems and therefore play out differently in practice such that a Psion is far more different as a caster from a Wizard than a Sorcerer or even a Druid is. If you eliminate the mechanical issues most of the thematic issues vanish. Pathfinder, for example, has the Psychic class, who uses 'psychic magic' but mechanically is just another full casting class with a particular flavor. If D&D had built psionics that way from the start I suspect there would be far fewer objections, in the same way that there are very few objections to the Alchemist class in Pathfinder, with is also just a full caster with a specific spell list and some weird flavor.