log in or register to remove this ad

 

Unearthed Arcana Official Unearthed Arcana Survey on Psionic Options Open Now

cbwjm

Hero
Being that I'm familiar overall with psionics since 2e, I have the general opinion that 3.5e psionics were the best and 2e psionics were the worse. So I'm definitely of the opinion that it shouldn't be too different from spells.

Still I don't like the psionic tradition wizard, that should certainly go back to the drawing board, and the others could have some more versatility in options.
I actually found 3e psionics worse than 2e because it was too much like spells. They even had the 9 levels of powers. I don't need it to be like 2e but I'd rather something different than 3e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes @Kobold Avenger, I would like to read your reasoning. My copy of 2e Complete Psionics Handbook, was destroyed many years ago, (along w/ most of my 2e books), but from memory, it was to my mind the best stand alone Psionic system to date.

It suffered, as all later Psionic systems, (barring the tacked on 1e system), of being released towards the end of 2e,(or respective systems release cycle), and I remember making two different Psionicists that I voluntarily retired due to being overly effective vis a vis the rest of the group.

That Hurt as I really enjoyed the Deryini novels as a youth.

As an aside, I never thought Athlas was a good fit for Psionics. I also never used the Player Option/ DM option series of books. Those books were too munchkin-y for me, and I was a self described power gamer then.

Sigh....do we need more 5e recycle rehash? Given that I highly doubt any current product released by Hasbro is going to be as in depth as that 2e Complete Psionics.....isn’t a reskinned Warlock w/ Shadow blade....a good version of the movie Dreamscape, which is clearly the inspiration for the Soul Blade.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
I’m pretty meh on Psionics as a whole, but I did think 2e approach was good, if not a bit OP.

Either way, now is the chance to have your voice heard.
 


Yes @Kobold Avenger, I would like to read your reasoning. My copy of 2e Complete Psionics Handbook, was destroyed many years ago, (along w/ most of my 2e books), but from memory, it was to my mind the best stand alone Psionic system to date.
Psionics should not be completely foreign from the existing rules especially if it was introduced in a book outside the core books. 2e's was the worst because it was so different, and had 2e had about 2.5 different versions of psionics with the Complete Psionics Handbook and the horrible psychic contact/tangeant rules (best defense against Psionics, is don't be psionic), and then Dark Sun revised which threw that system into the garbage, and then Skills & Powers.

For the first iteration, many powers didn't work at all if the psionicist didn't have psionic contact, which they had to do through the convoluted psionic combat system which they needed about 2 wins to get 2 tangeants. Meanwhile most of the other powers unless they were Disentigrate or Detnotation were quite weak. The Psionicist despite being conceived as being close to a Wizard, had nothing to stand up to it. And that was before they dumped that system once the Revised Dark Sun campaign setting came out in favour of things like MTHAC0 and Mental AC.

Once the D20 system was solidified in 3e, it showed that having powers based on skill rolls wouldn't work, as the non-psionic Truenamer which using skill rolls proved. Skill rolls to use powers either gets too difficult as levels go up such as the Truenamer had, or they just become so simple they are irrelevant that one shouldn't have bothered with them in the first place.

3.5e psionics had levels which was familiar enough to balance with equivalent spells, it introduced enhancing powers, that every spell-casting class in 5e uses now. It certainly had it's problems like making the "nova" too common, and new spells that should have been on the psion power list still had to be rewritten for psionics, if they remembered to do such a thing.

The major thing about having a different system, as explained before a bunch of times, is that even though the player might like it, the DM doesn't want to learn a new system just to accommodate one player. It would go something like this:
Player: I want to play a psionicist!
DM: That class is completely overpowered, they can get disintegrate at 1st level and override magic and so on....
Player: But it's different now, it's balanced and everything, see this...
DM: I don't have time for this, f#@! off!

If they stick to using spells, I think that same scenario will turn out differently. As it'll just involve getting used to some new spells.
 



GnomeWorks

Adventurer
So I'm definitely of the opinion that it shouldn't be too different from spells.

I think that what we learned from 3e is that it's fine if the effects are similar, it's the way those abilities are accessed and the aesthetics that matter.

Having the psionics mechanics in general be "these are spells, but are different in X, Y, and Z ways," where X, Y, and Z are noticeable and aesthetically-pleasing while not overly complicated compared to vanilla spellcasting, feels like it would be a reasonable starting point.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
I prefer the Complete Psionicist Handbook (unless I was using Green Ronin's version), but interestingly enough, check out the Palladium/Rifts version of a psionicist.

They were indeed nearly same, magic used PPE points, and psionics used ISP points. And some spells / abilities were very similar.

BUT!

The classes, although they worked the "same", had different core abilities, and some spells/powers were unique.

And Rifts had no problem distinguishing between psychics and mages!*

So although I PREFER a seperate system like so many decry, I would happily accept using the sorcerer with power points, as long as this "psionic" class had unique abilities built into the base, and some things only it could do (or do way better).





*I really should get a free cookie, a beer, or something, for actually using RIFTS of all things as an example of good design. But it did work.
 

I liked the Soulblade and Pyschic Warrior.
I felt that the Psychic Warrior would be horribly boring to play up till about level 10 - the same lack of tactical choices as the Champion, but constantly rolling fiddly small dice to add to and subtract from damage.

Nothing against it in principle, but an EK with psychic spells would be a lot more enjoyable to actually play.


Anyway, a reminder for everyone: please give as much detailed feedback as you can, no matter what your opinion is.
 
Last edited:



cbwjm

Hero
UA 33 without the wu jen and nomad and soulknife does it for me so far. It is a 5e approach on psionics which is usable for DS 5e. The feat stuff not. It might work for eberron but thats about it.
I actually thought that UA, with a few changes, would have worked well as a basis for the original Dragonlance sorcerer that had access to a few domains and was able to shape the magic on the fly.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The rogue is fine other than them overestimating the power level of the blades themselves (it’s just summoning a d6 dagger. Big deal.), but the fighter is pretty meh.

Doesn’t play like Vader, doesn’t play like a psychic warrior.

Give it Catapult, at least. Preferably give it a lower leveled scaling telekinesis.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
The rogue is fine other than them overestimating the power level of the blades themselves (it’s just summoning a d6 dagger. Big deal.), but the fighter is pretty meh.

Doesn’t play like Vader, doesn’t play like a psychic warrior.

Give it Catapult, at least. Preferably give it a lower leveled scaling telekinesis.

Id be curious to know the details on your experience playing the psychic fighter
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Id be curious to know the details on your experience playing the psychic fighter
Couple one shots.

But I knew it wouldn’t when it dropped. Vader throws stuff at enemies. The PW doesn’t.

I also didn’t really enjoy the subclass just as a psionic warrior. I got more out of slightly tweaking the ED to make sure they had all the Psionics themed spells, and could throw their weapon.


Did make me realize that I still strongly miss the 4e swordmage, and performing magic with my weapon, not as two separate things.

I think I’m gonna make a suite of new weapon based spells, make sure there are several at all levels that aren’t basically just “hit, add magic damage”.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The rogue is fine other than them overestimating the power level of the blades themselves (it’s just summoning a d6 dagger. Big deal.

The daggers bend the rules of the action economy, have no ammo restrictions, cannot be traced (no wounds from pshycic damage), can be snuck anywhere, bypass magical weapons needs, and psychic damage is not something that many things gave resistance to.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The daggers bend the rules of the action economy, have no ammo restrictions, cannot be traced (no wounds from pshycic damage), can be snuck anywhere, bypass magical weapons needs, and psychic damage is not something that many things gave resistance to.
All of which adds up to a minor feature, sorry. It’s a returning finesse handaxe. Everything else is ribbon level stuff.
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
All of which adds up to a minor feature, sorry. It’s a returning finesse handaxe. Everything else is ribbon level stuff.

Also worth noting, that the point of comparison for the two abilities including the knives in the touchstone Subclass, the Thief, is Fast Hands or Second-Story Work: if anything, the Soul Knife as presented is a bit OP, but is hasn't had the balance pass yet
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top