Why the hate on the Psion class?

[Theoboldi]

So you want new mechanics for what is essentially a flavor differentiation and roleplay choices? Hard pass. But maybe you can find a DM who likes extra work for no reason.

I mean, I'd be alright with it as a GM, since I like psychic powers and would want to encourage them. But that aside, I find your conclusion a bit reductive of what I've said.

It's not a flavor differentiation and just a roleplay choice. Ideally, a system of psionic powers should make your abilities feel as if they naturally grow and expand in what they can do. It's not about what I want to represent to other people who watch me play, but what I feel when playing the character.

There's no need to insinuate that my opinion on this carries no value.

[Haldir]

I mean, I'd be alright with it as a GM, since I like psychic powers and would want to encourage them. But that aside, I find your conclusion a bit reductive of what I've said.

It's not a flavor differentiation and just a roleplay choice. Ideally, a system of psionic powers should make your abilities feel as if they naturally grow and expand in what they can do. It's not about what I want to represent to other people who watch me play, but what I feel when playing the character.

There's no need to insinuate that my opinion on this carries no value.

There's a bit of reduction there yes, because I think your opinion kind of summarizes everyones anti-psionic feelings in this thread.

You literally said you didn't want to use the Mind Control that was already in the game, you needed your own special mind control ability. I understand wanting to play a psychic, but needing your psychic to be different just because you want them to be different is a bit of an ask for some tables.

[Anonymouswizard]

Psionic Combat died in the fire it deserved during the 3e rewrite.

To be fair, 3e made a decent attempt at it. Nonpsionics got a hefty* defensive bonus for free, meaning it didn't render them obsolete, and it technically worked. It just wasn't really worthwhile, I remember Attack and Defence modes being quite expensive for what they did.

* not as good as am optimal defence, but I think they got a bonus against all five Attack Modes.

But, I do like the hypthetical idea of "magic vs magic" being more than two mages or psychics or whatever playing rocket-tag, with the first one to land a spell winning.

Honestly, I think 'first to land a spell' is a fine easy to model it.

The problem is that in many games landing the spell is too easy. Magicians should be casting wards and counterwards, trying to slip that one combat ending spell past their opponent's defences while predicting their foe's means of attack.

Magical and psychic duels should be like physical duels, with a back and forth to try to land that killing blow, with occasional breaks to rest in official duels where the participants can top up their wards.

And I'm now imagining two wizards at opposite ends of a city, using Abjuration and Divination spells to premature the other, with the referee calling a tea break every hour.

[Theoboldi]

There's a bit of reduction there yes, because I think your opinion kind of summarizes everyones anti-psionic feelings in this thread.

You literally said you didn't want to use the Mind Control that was already in the game, you needed your own special mind control ability. I understand wanting to play a psychic, but needing your psychic to be different just because you want them to be different is a bit of an ask for some tables.

....

I gave my reasons. There are thematic trappings that should be represented in a psychic. And ones that quite frankly, have been shown to work. It's not about just 'needing my own special ability'.

Other than that, I feel a bit personally attacked here. Yes of course at its core I want psychics to be different because I would like that. That's a bit of a nonsensical thing to complain about. I wouldn't force every table to use a specific psychic variant and its not the end of the world if I had to use normal spellcaster mechanics to represent them. All I did was disagree with the notion that a normal spellcaster with a special list would be completely sufficient and satisfying.

[Haldir]

Going round in circles here.

As long as you can do the things you want at the end of the day, I only need one mechanical option for it. Asking for another one is pretty much why people have a disliking for psionics, which is a shame, because they are a fun archetype. I just don't care for the unnecessary stuff to make your feels good.

[Max_Killjoy]

Going round in circles here.

As long as you can do the things you want at the end of the day, I only need one mechanical option for it. Asking for another one is pretty much why people have a disliking for psionics, which is a shame, because they are a fun archetype. I just don't care for the unnecessary stuff to make your feels good.

Sometimes the mechanics are grossly bad at representing the actual thing going on with the power.

[Theoboldi]

Going round in circles here.

As long as you can do the things you want at the end of the day, I only need one mechanical option for it. Asking for another one is pretty much why people have a disliking for psionics, which is a shame, because they are a fun archetype. I just don't care for the unnecessary stuff to make your feels good.

Okay. I mean, I guess it's unnescessary. But that's a complete non-argument. D&D itself is not necessary. None of us actually need the game. Nor do I need a special psion class.

It's just nice to have. And better at giving those of us who like it the feeling of being this character type that we like.

I'm gonna leave this conversation here, since I said all I wanted on the subject, and you are right, we are just talking in circles.

Sometimes the mechanics are grossly bad at representing the actual thing going on with the power.

I don't agree with most stuff you say, Max, but this I do fully agree with.

[hoaiphong123]

I think it's more like a sci-fi thing

[Quertus]

So, this thread - plus Angry's article - helped me understand what's always bothered me about psionics. And it's related to "needless complexity".

Now, 2e had "make a stat check - sometimes your power works, sometimes it doesn't". That was "complexity with purpose". And 2e used all 6 stats for those rolls. OK, that allows different psions to have different strengths and weaknesses. Complexity with purpose.

But 3e? Your specialization determined which stat you used for everything. 3.5? Intelligence. Period.

So what don't I like? What's been bugging me?

Well, to my mind, psionics is an act of will. It's not how well you understand arcane formulae, or how powerful your mind is, but how strong your will is. And, to me, that's Wisdom.

And I'd never really thought about it before.

Simple- the DM's job is already complex enough without having to learn an entirely new system of magic that literally does nothing that old one didn't already.

No, you wanting to be special and feel different from a wizard is not actually enough to justify the work. You want a Psion? I'll help you pick the perfect spelllist in the wizard or sorceror class. I'll even let you write as many new ones are you want. But I will not be interested in a brand new subset of mechanics just for the sake of the mechanics being different.

Going round in circles here.

As long as you can do the things you want at the end of the day, I only need one mechanical option for it. Asking for another one is pretty much why people have a disliking for psionics, which is a shame, because they are a fun archetype. I just don't care for the unnecessary stuff to make your feels good.

I mean, you can kill people just fine with SoD spells, why ask for a separate mechanic to hit things and deal damage? Now everything has to track "Hit Points" just because Fighters have to be difficult, and not use the simple SoD system.

Still, that's your good for being willing to let people write new spells to match their vision. For some things, that will work fine. For the Fighter, though? Probably not so much. So it depends on how the player conceptualizes psionics.

[Lord Torath]

So, this thread - plus Angry's article - helped me understand what's always bothered me about psionics. And it's related to "needless complexity".

Now, 2e had "make a stat check - sometimes your power works, sometimes it doesn't". That was "complexity with purpose". And 2e used all 6 stats for those rolls. OK, that allows different psions to have different strengths and weaknesses. Complexity with purpose.

But 3e? Your specialization determined which stat you used for everything. 3.5? Intelligence. Period.

So what don't I like? What's been bugging me?

Well, to my mind, psionics is an act of will. It's not how well you understand arcane formulae, or how powerful your mind is, but how strong your will is. And, to me, that's Wisdom.

And I'd never really thought about it before.

2E Actually only used 3 stats: Wisdom (Prime Requisite), Constitution, and Intelligence.

[Quertus]

2E Actually only used 3 stats: Wisdom (Prime Requisite), Constitution, and Intelligence.

What? No, that can't be right. *Checks*

Catfall: Dex -2
Awe: Chr -2

But… those are outliers, almost everything uses those 3 stats. Huh.

[Anonymouswizard]

But 3e? Your specialization determined which stat you used for everything. 3.5? Intelligence. Period.

3e is worse. Psychometabolism runs off Strength. Psychoportation runs off Dexterity. Psychokinesis runs off Constitution. Metacreativity runs off Intelligence. Clairsentience runs off Wisdom. Telepathy runs off Charisma.

It doesn't matter which you decided to focus on, this is always true (otherwise the Psychic Warrior doesn't work). In a game Othery than 3e D&D this more organic way of limiting powers miffy have been interesting, but D&D traditionally suffers from casters with broad limits and a harsh penalisation of MAD characters.

Which is why 3.5 turning Psions into wizards and introducing the Wilder as a Sorcerer analogue worked. Psionics now stood up to magic with it's SAD aspects, but stricter limits on what it could do, and the fact that there were far more spells published than powers, stopped it from bend too broken.

On that note, if like any eventual D&D 6e to have mental stats play a bigger role in combat, and physical stats to play a bigger role in spellcasting. Although maybe I'll just try making that system myself.

[Particle_Man]

But 3e? Your specialization determined which stat you used for everything. 3.5? Intelligence. Period.

So what don't I like? What's been bugging me?

Well, to my mind, psionics is an act of will. It's not how well you understand arcane formulae, or how powerful your mind is, but how strong your will is. And, to me, that's Wisdom.

And I'd never really thought about it.

I suppose you could ban psions and wilders but allow psychic warriors and soul knives.

[Segev]

So what don't I like? What's been bugging me?

Well, to my mind, psionics is an act of will. It's not how well you understand arcane formulae, or how powerful your mind is, but how strong your will is. And, to me, that's Wisdom.

And I'd never really thought about it before.
.

In 3e, they inconsistently made a transition where Charisma was force of will as you impose it on the world.

[Millstone85]

In 3e, they inconsistently made a transition where Charisma was force of will as you impose it on the world.

Yeah, when it comes to spellcasting and the like:

• Intelligence is about analysis, such as figuring out the protocol.
• Wisdom is about awareness, such as communing with nature.
• Charisma is about presence and determination.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, when it comes to spellcasting and the like:

• Intelligence is about analysis, such as figuring out the protocol.
• Wisdom is about awareness, such as communing with nature.
• Charisma is about presence and determination.

And only one of the three really lines up with the normal usage of the word.

[LibraryOgre]

Yeah, when it comes to spellcasting and the like:

• Intelligence is about analysis, such as figuring out the protocol.
• Wisdom is about awareness, such as communing with nature.
• Charisma is about presence and determination.

I borrow from Shadowrun, and it's Astral Attributes (at least, in earlier editions)

Intelligence is your Astral Quickness/Dexterity.
Willpower/Wisdom is your Astral Body/Constitution.
Charisma is your Astral Strength.

Quickly and accurately manipulate several concepts? That's intelligence. Resist being manipulated or affected? That's Wisdom. Force others into change? That's Charisma.

[Particle_Man]

Hmmm . . . That might actually be a fun way to do psionic combat. Each psionic character creates an avatar in mind space that has physical stats that are swapovers of the psionic character’s mental stats, and then the avatars duke it out.

[Eldan]

Interestingly, the Astral Plane actually works like that. At least, it did in Planescape, maybe also third edition: your mental ability scores also became your physical ability scores. THat said, I think they used Intelligence as Strength, Willpower as Dexterity and Charisma as Constitution, mostly because those lined up?

That said, I could see Charisma making sense as Constitution. It's your sense of self, too.

[Segev]

And only one of the three really lines up with the normal usage of the word.

Intelligence definitely does. Charisma does, too, if you pay attention to all the cases in which it's used. Wisdom is a bit of a stretch, but fits when you cut out the parts that overlap with the other two and look for the archetypal "wise man," who tends to be aware of much and able to read others like a book.

I'm curious if the one that "really lines up" to you is Int or Cha. I'm guessing Int.

[LibraryOgre]

Hmmm . . . That might actually be a fun way to do psionic combat. Each psionic character creates an avatar in mind space that has physical stats that are swapovers of the psionic character’s mental stats, and then the avatars duke it out.

This is similar to what Dark Sun's "Will and the Way" did. Using the 5 attacks and 5 defenses, they further specialized them into various seemings (cannot recall the phrase they used), which represented different aspects. A given seeming would be stronger against other seemings, just as different defenses were stronger against certain attacks.

To add spice, both sides would, ideally, have cards listing the attack, defense, and seeming they were using. They'd choose them, then reveal them simultaneously.... so if your opponent chose a good seeming, they could trounce you, even if your defense was usually strong against their attack.

[Max_Killjoy]

Intelligence definitely does. Charisma does, too, if you pay attention to all the cases in which it's used. Wisdom is a bit of a stretch, but fits when you cut out the parts that overlap with the other two and look for the archetypal "wise man," who tends to be aware of much and able to read others like a book.

I'm curious if the one that "really lines up" to you is Int or Cha. I'm guessing Int.

INT lines up.

CHA doesn't -- it's used for all sorts of stuff besides charm and "personal magnetism". Determination? Personal "power"? Inner "force"? What? Over time, it became the meaningless grab-bag stat of D&D.

[Lord Torath]

This is similar to what Dark Sun's "Will and the Way" did. Using the 5 attacks and 5 defenses, they further specialized them into various seemings (cannot recall the phrase they used), which represented different aspects. A given seeming would be stronger against other seemings, just as different defenses were stronger against certain attacks.

To add spice, both sides would, ideally, have cards listing the attack, defense, and seeming they were using. They'd choose them, then reveal them simultaneously.... so if your opponent chose a good seeming, they could trounce you, even if your defense was usually strong against their attack.

Harbingers and Constructs. The five attack modes were each divided into 4 harbingers, and the 5 defense modes were each divided into 5 constructs.

Personally, I find the harbingers and constructs to be "complexity for complexity's sake", and I've never used them. They use the very same rules as the standard attack and defense modes, except that you now need to check a 20x20 matrix for the modifiers rather than a 5x5 matrix. I figure you can add the imagery without adding the rules complexity. The cards are a very good idea, though. I've created a word file with the powers formatted onto 3x5 cards¹. The attack mode cards summarize the effects of a successful attack on a contacted mind (along with cost, range, power score, etc), and the defense mode cards list the modifier to the attack mode.

1. I then purchased a pdf from Paizo of the official TSR psionic cards and decided I liked mine better.

[Millstone85]

INT lines up.

CHA doesn't -- it's used for all sorts of stuff besides charm and "personal magnetism". Determination? Personal "power"? Inner "force"? What? Over time, it became the meaningless grab-bag stat of D&D.

I think determination can be justified as persuading oneself to push on. "Come on, me, you can do this!"

CHAsting might also assume that magic is receptive to personal magnetism.

[Segev]

INT lines up.

CHA doesn't -- it's used for all sorts of stuff besides charm and "personal magnetism". Determination? Personal "power"? Inner "force"? What? Over time, it became the meaningless grab-bag stat of D&D.

Nah, it's just leaning heavily on "force of personality."

[Bigmouth]

Despite the people posting hate on this particular thread, I don't think in general many players have any sort of hate for psions, or psychic powers being added into their D&D game. I heard a lot of complaints about 4E (a lot from my own gaming groups of the time) but what I didn't hear was "4E sucks because of psionic classes." Once my own gaming groups ended up deciding they liked 4E, it still wasn't something people hated. But they all hated psionics in earlier editions. With a passion. My own take from that is that people (in general) would have zero problem with a simple, well built psionic class or classes. The main stumbling block is poorly designed game mechanics for those classes.

[Segev]

Despite the people posting hate on this particular thread, I don't think in general many players have any sort of hate for psions, or psychic powers being added into their D&D game. I heard a lot of complaints about 4E (a lot from my own gaming groups of the time) but what I didn't hear was "4E sucks because of psionic classes." Once my own gaming groups ended up deciding they liked 4E, it still wasn't something people hated. But they all hated psionics in earlier editions. With a passion. My own take from that is that people (in general) would have zero problem with a simple, well built psionic class or classes. The main stumbling block is poorly designed game mechanics for those classes.

Probably not. Psionics in 4e is just martial initiation, like everything else. Disliking the mechanics of psionics in other editions doesn't make the mechanics BAD. In a lot of ways, they're more solid than systems that I doubt your group complained about in other editions. It's just different, perhaps in a way they disliked.

[Tvtyrant]

Probably not. Psionics in 4e is just martial initiation, like everything else. Disliking the mechanics of psionics in other editions doesn't make the mechanics BAD. In a lot of ways, they're more solid than systems that I doubt your group complained about in other editions. It's just different, perhaps in a way they disliked.

4E psions had the problem that the best powers were frontloaded, and you wanted to do the same thing every round of every combat. They were very effective, and extremely boring.

[Particle_Man]

And besides, 3.5 psionics are at least as well designed as 3.5 wizard spells. Now first and second Ed had issues and 3.0 had different issues. Though I have a soft spot for the 3.0 half-orc idiot with hypercognition.

[DMVerdandi]

Why the hate?

Grognardism.
Full stop.

I am a 90's baby, so I grew up with 3.5; Those who are speaking to the hate of editions before that fall on my deaf ears. I have no experience, nor desire to experience that. From my perspective, XPH is really the beginning of crunchy and organized psionics.

The excuse about not wanting to learn other systems is a poor excuse as well. If not being able to understand these rules was that hard, you wouldn't play the game. D&D is crunchy, and there are lighter systems if that is what you want.

And as far as 3.5 Psionics, "each power is level x 2 -1. You can't spend more than your level is points at once"
That's it. That is the system. Some powers can be augmented, in which you spend a point(s) to get a rider effect. So if something costs 3 points, and you can add a D6 with the expenditure of another point, then that is 3+1 = 4.
If you are level 4, you can't spend more to augment or for metapsionics.


That is at best 3rd grade mathematics. If you can't learn that, I have no faith in you as a DM or a creative mind, and you probably aren't even playing the core rules correctly. All of psionics is less complicated than wild-shape.


Then, in so far as Psychic powers not being "fantasy", then any mentalist, yogi, swami, or any of those types just don't exist. Never mind psychic powers BY NAME being a VERY frequent story device in stories and legends in many cultures that existed before the common era.
Patanjali's yoga scriptures, Journey to the west, Greek enlightenment philosophy, etc, and all of these ideas were traded [Up until the dark ages].

Furthermore, Dungeons and Dragons is really a melange of mythological settings and such, and almost all of it is an amalgamation. Knights in full armor fighting floating eyeball ALIENS in labyrinths? Come now.


The fact is people don't want psionics in their game because:
1.They are Myopically following certain tropes, and never deviating, even though the game itself deviates. Elves must always be archers, Dwarves must always be axe wielding drunks. All non-core features are non-existent and or broken. [Grognardism]

2.To spite their players who they perceive as being munchkins

3.Meme behavior and token responses based on the boards/internet [This happened with Tome of Battle too]

4.They have their own railroad and psionics for some reason don't fit. It's too anime or Scifi and as a form of protectionism, will not allow. Similar but not the same as 1.



It is NOT because it's too hard to learn, or inherently broken or any of that.