[Psi] Anyone with psi-only worlds?

[Rook]

If Thoughts Could Kill is a module that contains a number of variant rules for psions. It presents a new psion table for base PPs and number of powers discovered that some feel is more appropriate for the psion power level. It also brings secondary disciplines into play, in which a psion can pick two other disciplines that can thereafter use the same stat as his primary for DCs and power selection. Many people complained that psions were too limited in power selection due to the reliance of each discipline on a seperate stat. It also has some new powers, feats and a prestige class, but those are the major variant rules.

I'll note that my preference with psionics would be for a psionics only campaign. Frankly, I feel the "Mulligan's Stew" feel of many campaigns works against them. Many settings just toss in everything and the kitchen sink and I think that dilutes the setting. Especially when introducing such major effects as entire fields of reality altering powers. A psionics only campaign would feel much "tighter" to me. I've also made a divine magic only campaign that I think works pretty well.

It's easy enough to introduce new powers into the psion's power list by simply modifying the spells found in the PHB. I'll note that If Thoughts Could Kill discusses this at some length and gives a large list of spells placed onto the psion power list, as examples.

 

[A'koss]

It still sounds as though "If Thoughts Could Kill" still doesn't address the major concerns with 3e psionics. For example:

1. Why is there reliance on any other stat that Wisdom? Psionics are entirely in the realm of the mind, physical stats shouldn't even be a part of the equation. I also find it just adds an unneccessary level of complication and breaks the 3e standard of a single stat "prime requisite" for your powers. Wizards - Int, Sorcerers - Cha, Clerics - Wis. ITCK doesn't get at the heart of the matter here.

2. Psionic Combat: Having to cross-reference psionic powers vs defenses on a chart. There are many ways you could have addressed psionic combat without the need for a chart. I remember offering at least a couple of different alternatives during the playtest...

3. Many 3e psionic powers already have little or nothing to do with psionics, now ITCK wants to add more spell-like abilities to the mix? Why call it psionics at all, call it witchcraft or something else...

In a broader sense I find that psions are just too homogenous in nature. They are like the jack-of-all trades of psionics - telepathic, telekinetic, precognitive, etc... I would have liked to have seen more focus and direction here.

The reason why adding psionics to campaign right now results in a kind of "Mulligan's Stew" feel is that there really isn't a roll for them that existing classes can't already handle. You need a cleric for healing, you need a wizard/sorcerer for utility and heavy offense/defense, what is the 3e psion offering?

A'koss!

 

[Rook]

It sounds like you've simply got a different concept of psionics. Psionics in 1st and 2nd edition have always had a large field of abilities, many of which people might not think are particularly "psionicy". As to the use of stats other than Wisdom, that's simply the reflection of the oft-repeated adage that psionics depends upon Mind, Body and Soul, rather than simply Mind.

There's not a role for them because magic already fills all the roles. That's the problem with the Mulligan's Stew approach. Since arcane magic already handles mind affecting, teleportation, telekinesis and such, you're not going to get your desired role *unless* you winnow down and restrict the other classes. And since wizards are already so good (or can be) at the roles that you wish the psion to fill, you're either going to have to change the wizards or beef the psion in his speciality to a point that will likely become abusive.

Frankly, I agree with you that it would be best if psions were *more* restricted in their power choices. However, the *majority* of complaints that I've seen have been that the rules in the PsiBook were *too* restrictive. What's Bruce to do? The majority of gripers on the message boards seem to disagree with you and I.

The 2e rules allowed for an immense breadth of powers for the psionicist as well. It would be "better" in my mind for the class to be more focussed, but you can't do that easily while still have unfocussed classes in the other fields. If you restrict psions to a single field, but allow clerics, wizards, sorcerors and such, you're going to be creating a class that many see as crippled. That's why I think the best way to create a good role in a campaign for a psion is to simply create a psion only campaign. I think this will also tend to lead to better campaign flavor and a tighter set of concepts for the background.

BTW, Bruce only adds spells to the psion list unofficially and as a variant for those who have requested such a thing. Which some certainly do. I disagree with them, but it's their game to run.

 

[A'koss]

Rook: There's not a role for them because magic already fills all the roles. That's the problem with the Mulligan's Stew approach. Since arcane magic already handles mind affecting, teleportation, telekinesis and such, you're not going to get your desired role *unless* you winnow down and restrict the other classes. And since wizards are already so good (or can be) at the roles that you wish the psion to fill, you're either going to have to change the wizards or beef the psion in his speciality to a point that will likely become abusive.

I agree that to make the psion more attractive your best bet would be to remove a lot of the psionic-like powers (charm, precog, telekinesis/force) from the arcane and divine spell lists.

As to the use of stats other than Wisdom, that's simply the reflection of the oft-repeated adage that psionics depends upon Mind, Body and Soul, rather than simply Mind.

That sounds more like "Ki" or "Chi" than psionics to me. Those are the watchwords of the monk. Psions are physically unimposing having little HP or combat ability. I've always considered psionics to "transcend" the body. Xavier (old and weak in body), Tetuso (weak in body and spirit) but both possessing vast power.

Frankly, I agree with you that it would be best if psions were *more* restricted in their power choices. However, the *majority* of complaints that I've seen have been that the rules in the PsiBook were *too* restrictive. What's Bruce to do? The majority of gripers on the message boards seem to disagree with you and I.

While I advocate more _focus_, it should not necessarily come at the expense of feeling more _restricted_. I think a lot of disciplies can be rolled into one, and that would be one class. For example, roll Telepathy, some Psychoportation (mind out of body) and Clairsentience together as one class (pure mind stuff), the Psychokinesis and Metacreativity (force objects) could be one on it's own and Psychometabolics with a more martial character class could be another (ultimate warrior)... Each of these rolls can be then explored further with more innovative and true "psionic feeling" powers... Obviously this is quite a departure from the norm and I don't expect that it'd be very popular but at least it *feels* more logical that what's going on now.

That's why I think the best way to create a good role in a campaign for a psion is to simply create a psion only campaign. I think this will also tend to lead to better campaign flavor and a tighter set of concepts for the background.

This is certainly a valid option but I think with some of the other options we're discussing here (giving psions a role only they can fullfill) that you can do some interesting things alongside the spellcasters.


Cheers,

A'koss!