Psionics: Yea or Nay?

[athos]

Psionics: What version?

I like the idea of psionics, but as DM I rarely allow them, since the implementation in D&D has been iffy at best. The concept of the mind reaching out to another mind, or using some "inner" power to do things is not much different than magic, and magic spells, and magical rituals. I play a lot of sorcerers so I like the idea of not having a spell just once and then it is gone. I like the distribution of points that allows you to vary your energy from day to day as needed. All that said, I will allow in 2nd edition D&D only.

In 1st edition, it was supposed to be limited to the top 2-3% iirc, but it seemed like 30% of all characters I came across had them. In 2nd edition, they made a psionicist class, which was nice, I especially liked that in Dark Sun. It seemed to be best done and fit in Dark Sun / 2nd Edition. I never really played much 3.0, I went straight from 2.0 to 3.5, so I am not sure how broken / great it was in 3.0. But in 3.5, I hate psionics. I allowed them in one game, and 4 out of 6 characters were playing some kind of psionic, and all were fairly broken compared to the base character classes. They were doing 60d6 damage at 12th level iirc, it was sick. I have never allowed them again.

As for 4th edition, GURPS, other game systems, I just don't play them, so they may have the perfect "formula" for psionics, I don't know. My vote is if you know them like the back of your hand, and know what you should not allow (i.e. what is broken) then run your game with psionics by all means. But for people like me, that only have a medium knowledge of them in 3.5, I would avoid them like the plague.

 

[Nifft]

But in 3.5, I hate psionics. I allowed them in one game, and 4 out of 6 characters were playing some kind of psionic, and all were fairly broken compared to the base character classes. They were doing 60d6 damage at 12th level iirc, it was sick. I have never allowed them again.

Your players were not playing by the rules. They should have been rolling maximum 12d6 at 12th level.

It may have been an honest mistake -- though I find it hard to believe that all 4 players mis-read the rules identically -- but either way, it was not the fault of 3.5e's Psionics. It was the fault of your players not reading the rules, or the fault of your players exploiting your ignorance of the rules.

Cheers, -- N

 

[BryonD]

To be perfectly honest, when someone says that they want 'Psionics' in a game, beyond the request for a certain mechanical system I have absolutely no idea what they mean and I'm not sure that they do either.

The same argument could be presented for "magic" in a game.

Here at a place like ENWorld there is a certain degree of agreement, but I'm very certain you could find tons of variety and no small amount of sparks trying to reach a consensus.

Step back to more casual gamers, or even the public at large, and the idea of what constitutes "magic" would easily be just as unclear as psionics is to you.

And by the exact same token, there are plenty of people with a very clear idea of what psionics means to them, despite your personal ambiguity.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Your players were not playing by the rules. They should have been rolling maximum 12d6 at 12th level.

It may have been an honest mistake -- though I find it hard to believe that all 4 players mis-read the rules identically -- but either way, it was not the fault of 3.5e's Psionics. It was the fault of your players not reading the rules, or the fault of your players exploiting your ignorance of the rules.

Cheers, -- N

Yeah, I've found the vast majority of complaints about 3.5 psionics comes down to "We didn't use the rules and oh god everything broke."

The funny thing is, in the end, wizards and clerics were more powerful then psions

 

[Doug McCrae]

The rule about not being able to spend more power points than your manifester level is often not known afaics. So often that I'd say it's a failing of the rules rather than the players.

 

[Nifft]

The rule about not being able to spend more power points than your manifester level is often not known afaics. So often that I'd say it's a failing of the rules rather than the players.

A failing of the writers and/or editors, perhaps, but how can "the rules" possibly be responsible for people who don't use them?

 

[Doug McCrae]

A failing of the writers and/or editors, perhaps, but how can "the rules" possibly be responsible for people who don't use them?

Technically correct, which is the best kind. Particularly in a conversation about rules.

Puts me in mind of when I attended the first meeting of the Bureaucratic Society. Or, I should say, the preliminary preparatory fledgling revue body convened with a view to forming a Bureaucratic Society. What a meeting that was! Sadly the minutes have been lost as the secretary went mad and ate them.

 

[Haltherrion]

I'm a strong 'no' on psionics. Fundamentally for me, psionics seems to be a science fiction game element that has no place (for my aesthetics) in a fantasy game. My other objections:

• Most systems, D&D in particular, already have many sources of magic power (divine, arcane-study for wizards, arcane-innate for sorcerers, demonic, etc.) why add one more with non-fantasy "flavor"?
• More recent systems are better but historically, psionics have been an ill-conceived, poorly executed after thought (especially the very old system of roll some dice and the lucky few gets some goodies).

I don't mix technology in my settings either so no crashed space ships (was surprised to read recently on wikipedia that Expedition to the Barrier Peaks was so well regarded; I've never cared for it since the day I played it in the late 70s), no steampunk.

It's purely a matter of personal aesthetics, however. There is no reason you can't have a good psionic rule base or can't integrate it successfully into a game.

I do like the psionics concept but for me its place is contemporary or future settings and fiction.

 

[Shroomy]

Excellent- may have to take a look-see at PHB3 then!




Hmm..not so good- will def have to take a long look-see at Borders before I purchase

IMO, the overall PHB3 psionic system is fine and balanced, the problems are specifically with some of the lower level powers. There's a couple of heroic tier powers, such as the psion's dishearten and mind thrust that are too good because they combine a scaling penalty tied to the classes' secondary stat with a low power-point cost. Thus at higher levels, its better to keep those lower-level powers and hand out -8 penalties every round at epic levels instead of trading them in for the higher level powers. Errata the specific powers and you'll be fine.

As for psionics themselves, I'm fine with them. I don't have much experience with them in prior editions (I owned the books in 2e and 3.5e, but never really used them), but I do love the 4e implementation.

 

[Psion]

I personally feel that redressed, the 3.0 era Sorcerer is a pretty darn flexible and fairly generic class capable of emulating just about any magic user of any sort in fiction - including Psions

I ran sorcerers as a psion substitute in early 3e, and I found the fit poor. For that matter I found the sorcerer sort of a thematically odd bird, though I understand the mechanical reasons it exists.

The idea of fixed spells in d&d producing fixed effect fits my concept of incantation style magic. Likewise, the idea of psionic powers varying in effect with expendiature of effort/force of will seemed natural for representing psychic powers.

But the sorcerer producing discrete effects as natural powers seemed an odder fit. It's magic, so it can be handwaved and justified, but endeavors to do so were less obvious to me.