So what do you guys think of 2nd edition psionics?

Celebrim

Legend
I suppose, etymologically speaking, psionics and bionics have one other thing in common, in that the popular definition of each has changed radically from their initial usages. Where the textbook definition varies from actual usage, I think most languages put legitimacy with what people actually say.

Which is why I'm fine using the modern, incorrect, usages of those words.

So, if you look at the definition of bionics, it incorporates two related ideas.

First, borrowing ideas from biology and implementing them in mechanical form. And secondly, replacing or enhancing biological function using machines. The two ideas are distinct, but the first is basically a predicate for the second. If you want to replace a knee with a machine that does the same function, you first have to have some idea how a knee works. So it's pretty easy to see how the drift in meaning could occur.

When a definition drifts, a lexicographer will start appending new definitions below the original one. Over time, if the old usage falls completely out of favor, the old definition will cease to be the preferred definition and move down the list and eventually get marked with 'archaic' or 'obsolete'. Right now, as psionic is most usually used, you could have the primary definition merely 'see PSYCHIC' and nothing would be lost in the meaning. But of course, that usage obscures lots of actual specific depth of meaning particular to the word 'psionic' that 'psychic' does not have. Sadly, I think D&D is probably the #1 culprit in this, doing for 'psionic' what it has done for words like 'ranger' and 'longsword'. Hopefully HEMA will be able to eventually reverse the damage done by 'longsword'. Or maybe not. Sir Walter Scott has left us with the inescapable neologism 'chainmail' ('chain chain'), and from that 'platemail' ('plate chain'), that seems unlikely to ever go away particularly after D&D propagated it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Citan Uzuki

Explorer
2nd Edition psionics is a tough call sometimes. While many of them are quite nifty and have uses, particularly for solo players, many of them are quite powerful even early on (as everyone has mentioned, the Disintegrate one). One thing to remember is that it is ultimately up to the DM on whether he/she allows something or not. It's possible that the DM might only allow something potent to be used if you can have another psionicist teach it to you. This would help limit the more potent sciences and devotions from being far too available right at the start.
This is just my thought on the matter.
 

Whisper72

Explorer
When you boil it down, the psion in 2nd ed is basically a wizard with spellpoints in stead of spell slots....

This brings a certain flexibility (and power problems) on the one hand, and there were some 'cool new powerz' on the other hand. At the time when the book came out, my players naturally wanted to play psions. Heck, we even did a bunch of 'all psion' games where all the PC's were psions of some sort.

It was a lot of fun, and when the players are nog into upstaging eachother etc., the unbalancedness of the class is not really an issue (I never had any issues with unbalanced characters, it is a matter of mindset of the players and the way the DM handles encounters and the players, and not per se a problem inherent in a character...)

So, yes, a lot of fun was had with it, I remember the class fondly...
 

fuindordm

Adventurer
I played a long campaign as a dwarf fighter/psionicist using the "complete psionics" handbook.
Was my character overpowered? I don't think so, even using psionics to boost my stats I regularly got my ass handed to me by pure fighters and my one death was from a high-level rogue backstab.
Did I have some really cool powers? Yes--energy absorption and later complete healing.
But I NEVER had enough power points to do everything I wanted.
I think the book got several things right:
* Power points: your pool starts relatively high, increases slowly, and powers are expensive. So you have a lot of flexibility but also run out quickly.
* Ability checks: your ability scores definitely channel you into a specialty, but all your powers have a risk of failure (wasted action) which is a nice limitation and makes you feel different from a wizard

I never did much with psionic combat, so I can't speak to how well that subsystem works.

There is a large list of powers and some of them may seem over/underpowered. But try them in play! Overall I think the class measures up well against a wizard or cleric and yet feels very different from both.

I prefer the 2nd edition psionics to 3rd edition's version, which never felt different enough from magic for my taste.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I didn't like 2e psionics. Too much of it was needlessly complicated and clunky for too little return. If 1e was too weird a set of subsystems and wahoo on power, 2e was too far in the other direction. 3e's psionics, on the other hand, I liked. Maybe too vulnerable to abuse in some ways but I liked the general structure. Served as a good model for a point-based spell caster too.

Frankly, if you don't have to interact with 2e psionics in a campaign, I would recommend simply not doing so.
 



nijineko

Explorer
Having researched the history of psychic phenomena in general and psionics specifically, I have learned a few interesting things that I would like to share as background and history... which I will try to recall off the top of my head, as I'm away from my notes.

One: the history of mental abilities that are specifically not magic go back thousands of years in human history. Especially in the mythology of India. Therefore, magic and psi / psychic stuff are not the same thing, psi / psychic powers are not another version of magic, and they never have been the same. Having said that, magical effects that duplicate the mental powers I am referring to, and blending of the line between magical and mental have also been a thing, both in history and especially in more recent times, which leads to a lot of modern confusion of the two.

WotC using the same mechanics for both didn't help, despite making it easy for newcomers to pick up.

Two: the term "psionics" was invented and coined by a certain pulp novel writer who combined "psi" and "electronics" and used it to mean "electronics that used units of mental energy to function". Incidentally, said units of mental energy were called "psions (plural), and psion (singular)".

Sorry WotC, you didn't invent it, and you're not even using it correctly. (Assuming that the original definitions have primacy and precedence. )

Beings who could use psions of mental energy to produce effects or power psionic equipment were usually called "heroes / heroines / villains / aliens / etc., with Psi abilities", sometimes Espers, especially later on. This swiftly became popular, and a wide spread acceptance of the terminology soon embedded itself into fantasy, and more especially into space opera and science fiction. Eventually, the term psionics came to replace the term Psi as the more common usage.

Three: the term Psychic was more associated with the communication with the spirits of the dead, seances (especially in the early to mid 1900s), certain magical traditions such as the Chaldean, the Babylonian, or the Witch of Endor... and again with people who cheat and deceive others for money, power, and influence. It is only in modern times that the term psychic has been diluted and used to mean all Psi phenomena and powers in general. The term psychic has also been largely overshadowed by the term psionics.

Four: the term bionics actually comes from the term psionics, not the other way around, in the sense that it is electronics that interface with biology. Though it is rare to see actual devices that are powered by biology in the original sense of the word, as opposed to cybernetics. The Dark Sun lifeshaped grafts would count as wetware, rather than bionics. Should units of biological energy be called bions then? I think perhaps the term Bio-E became more prevalent thanks to TMNT.

Five: the resurgence of interest in psychic phenomena in the 1900's coincided roughly with an increasing trend rejecting the pseudo-mystical and mystical traditions of magic / majik / magick / etc., (and occasionally mystical-religious) trappings so often donned by the many deceivers looking to take financial, political, religious, mental, and social advantage of susceptible people.

Six: there were many documented cases of mental phenomena in the 1800s and 1900s (research titanic references for just a few of the many) that people were trying to reason about and understand, and the idea of psi phenomena resonated with those who rejected the magical or mystical and sought a more scientific explanation for such. Ironically, many modern scientists reject one of the very things that contributed its part to the advances of scientific research of the era.

Seven: the 50s, 60s, and 70s contributed their bit to openmindedness and the rejection of the rat race, which had various influences on how Psi and Psychic phenomena was viewed, perceived, and accepted (or rejected).

It was this accumulated history that the creator of the original psionic rules in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry drew upon in 1976. Those rules, and the powers therein, have heavily influenced the concepts of Psi, the Psychic, and psionics ever since.

In the original edition, "psionic abilities" function like discrete abilities.

In 1st edition, more definitions (and rules) were given, and three powers were added.

When 2nd edition came out, psionics had been removed, as Gygax had indicated he would do in a Dragon Magazine article; even though 2nd ed was published after he was booted from the company.

Later in 2nd ed, the "psionic world" Dark Sun was released, where "magic was hated and feared, while psionics were accepted in daily life"... and ironically (or maliciously) did not contain any rules for psionics - you had to buy a second book, the Compete Psionic Handbook in order to get the Dark Sun psionic system. This is notably the first time the Attack Modes and Defense Modes were converted to powers (not in 3.5 as many believe).

Containing references to both Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, it officially if backhandedly applied psionics to both 2e worlds in addition to the world of Athas.

Two more books with psionics were released for 2nd ed Dark Sun: Dragon Kings, and The Will and the Way (which introduced epic level psionics for the first time to D&D, called High Sciences, as well as revising the 2e psionics system).

As the Dark Line was not continued into 3rd edition, WotC declared that Athas.org was the official sponsored source of all 3rd edition Dark Sun content, all of which would be co-owned with WotC, an unprecedented legal status unique to all the Other Worlds sites hosting discontinued lines, which has never been officially rescinded, and is mostly, if not completely, ignored these days.
 
Last edited:

For the 5e standards the mental fight in 2nd was too complicated and slow.

The "mythology" about the psionic powers a couple of decade after has changed. It is not only the occultist powers in Paizo's Pathfinder but the influence of manganime and manhua/donghua.

 

TheHand

Adventurer
Realizing that the OP is from 8 years ago and therefore unlikely to see this, nevertheless it jogged a memory from my own experience playing a Psionicist in 2e days. I think we were around 7-8 level and facing an 'end-boss' level encounter of a pair of mind-flayers with their umber hulk minions. Forget low-level "Disintegrate", I remember my Psionicist firing off "Mass Dominate" and seizing control of almost half the villain force to the battlecry of "Who's the Elder Brain Now??!"

Afterward, myself included, we all agreed the Psionicist was too broken as a class and the character (and book) were both retired.
 

Remove ads

Top