Who got Psionics in my Dnd?

From the intro to Eldritch Wizardry (Timothy Kask, April '76): "The introduction of psionic combat is bound to enliven games grown stagnant. It opens up untold possibilities for both players and the DM, and in so doing recognizes one of the favorite topics of science fiction and fantasy writers: the unknown powers of the mind." (Reading a passage from 1976 expressing concern about D&D games grown stagnant makes me feel very, very old.) The system presented in Eldritch Wizardry is very similar to what later appeared in the Appendix of the 1E PHB, with one important exception: psionic characters paid a penalty for their psionic abilities. Fighters, for example, lost one follower for every psionic ability, and one point of strength for every 4 psionic abilities. I meant to ask Gary why the downside was dropped in the transition to the PHB, but I can't recall if I ever did. Anyway, I think the PHB version is the one to label "unbalanced".

Edit: whoops, sorry, posted without realizing this topic had gone beyond one page.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So, for those of you who don't like psionics in fantasy, what distinguishes psionics from arcane magic for you? What is the key difference between a psion's force screen and a wizard's shield?

Is it the flavor of tapping on an internal power source instead of an extenal one?

Is it the ability to create supernatural effects without the need for verbal, material or somatic components?

Is it the naming convention?

Is it the mechanic of using power points instead of spell slots?

Something else?
 


It's generally the flavour and the naming conventions for me. Some of the specific powers also. But yes, psionics in D&D is really just another magic system, and the system itself could just as easily be used for arcane or divine magic.
 

Interesting. Unless I missed it, no one has identified where the 2e psionics system was yoinked from, which was Julian May's pretty-darn-good Saga of the Pliocene Exile series, et al.
 


Firelance said:
Is it the ability to create supernatural effects without the need for verbal, material or somatic components?
I know we're excluding 4e from this discussion, but really, 4e arcane powers have verbal/material/somatic components.

And, to your general question Firelance, I actually like psionics. I just firmly dislike the naming convention. The naming convention and the new agey crystal business offended my with 3.5 psionics, even though I felt the mechanics were so much more solid and sexy than the regular system.
 
Last edited:

And, to your general question Firelance, I actually like psionics. I just firmly dislike the naming convention. The naming convention and the new agey crystal business offended my with 3.5 psionics, even though I felt the mechanics were so much more solid and sexy than the regular system.

I might be in the minority, as I like psionics and really like its pseudo-scientific naming conventions (I have less fuzzy feeling towards the crystal fetish and I'm kind of meh on the whole ectoplasm thing), as I thought they were the most distinctive thing about what was really an alternative magic system. (in any edition; when I was a kid, I never really grok'd the 1e and 2e psionic rules despite my affection for Dark Sun...maybe I should have sat down and actually read through the entire 2e rules).
 

Yeah I am like Shroomy. I quite like the pseudo-scientific names, and I hope they keep them for the 4e version. But while I am fine with a little fringe element of crystals and ectoplasm I don't want it to be the core of Psionics this time around.
 

Yeah I am like Shroomy. I quite like the pseudo-scientific names, and I hope they keep them for the 4e version. But while I am fine with a little fringe element of crystals and ectoplasm I don't want it to be the core of Psionics this time around.

I'm thinking that psionic power source powers will utilize some sort of Implement. I'm guessing that crystals will part of that.
 

Remove ads

Top