Psionics - core or not?

But how about those who want telepathy, telekinesis and mind control in the game, but not psionics? :erm:

This is the part I don't quite get, why are all those things okay, but not psionics? They are all psychic powers. So why should a class that specializes in them be so offensive?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've always liked psionics, but more as an appendix type of thing. To be honest, I was fine with leaving them as wild-talent options, like 1e and (optionally) 2e did. Based on that, it's probably no surprise that I'd rather have them deferred.

If there is a 5e Psionics Handbook, I'd be just fine with having actual psionic classes (maybe including the monk, though I didn't play 4e long enough to consider it before now) take up a good portion of the book. I would like to see some sort of wild talent mechanic, probably along the lines of Eberron dragonmarks.

As far as psions being just wizards with healing and funky mechanics, I'm less concerned with that than why clerics are just wizards with healing, less damage, and the same mechanics. It makes a lot more sense for psions to be similar to wizards than for clerics to be so.
 

I'm against calls that Psions shouldn't be like Wizards without power points.

If you want psionics to be integrated with the core and not something that's tacked on and unbalanced, you can't have them drastically different from wizards. Too different means they don't get integrated.

Sure it may have felt unique back in 2e and 3.0e with psionic combat and their psionic attack modes and defenses, but it just didn't work out. You were stuck with a complicated table of looking things up that slowed the game down. I remember 2e psionic combat was like this, "They're using a psionic attack mode, why don't I just use Ballistic Attack instead". It's no wonder they dropped it out in 3.5e, especially when a popular feat (from Dragon) was one that made it so that the character never could use psionic combat, and got more useful bonuses instead. And why would a psionic character use psionic combat, if they specialized in things like altering their body and telekinesis and never bothered to touch a single thing with telepathy?
 

If you want psionics to be integrated with the core and not something that's tacked on and unbalanced, you can't have them drastically different from wizards. Too different means they don't get integrated.
Arcane magic, divine magic, warlock-y innate magic, and a variety of combat mechanics and other rules integrate just fine. Why would psionics be any different?
 

Arcane magic, divine magic, warlock-y innate magic, and a variety of combat mechanics and other rules integrate just fine. Why would psionics be any different?
This is in response to someone wanting psionics to be more like 2e psionics which won't integrate, rather than 3e psionics which will integrate.
 

This is in response to someone wanting psionics to be more like 2e psionics which won't integrate, rather than 3e psionics which will integrate.
My point is that 3e psionics integrated, but it was magic with another name, not a legit psionics system. Even 2e wasn't nearly different enough.

But if the rules can support characters as different as fighters, rouges, clerics, and wizards (let alone some of the other funky ones), what's wrong with a psionic character using another different set of mechanics?
 

For my 2¢ the powers of psionics are baseline magical abilities.

The observation that to be treated properly they should be stripped from the Wizards and Clerics is spot on however. If you're going to insist on lots of seperate magical classes, each should have a core set of abilities which, if not unique to them, they at least do better than anyone else. Clerics should not be the only healers (please) but they should be the best. Wizards should not have the only magical boom, but they should have the best. Psionics should not have the only telepathy/clairvoyance/mind***k but they should have the best.

Alternately you could do it the way Monte already did it in Arcana Unearthed where all the different spell casters share the vast bulk of thier spell lists, but conceptually draw their power from different sources and may have different spell casting compontents. (Verbal, somatic, material, etc)

As for psionics as not being past of fantasy, I think that's bogus. The modern terminology of psionics is anachronistic in a supposedly 12th century fantasy game. However the powers themselves? 9/10th of the supernatural stuff in the LotR was closer to psionics than vancian magic. Precognition (Aragorn), telepathy (elves and gandalf), clairvoyance (several times, usually with assistence from a magic item), hell Faramir mind probed Gollum.
 

It should not be core, period.

However, if they do it as an option, I'd love it if they would take the Shadowforce Archer approach to psionics (and also use it for magic), where you take a feat to open up your latent potential, and then each feat taken opens up specific areas of capability. Actually using psionics powers, however, requires you to make a skill check.

Simple, easy, and works for both magic and psionics.
 

I only remember two 1e psionicists. Both were rangers, and due to the nature of psychic combat, they would usually lose and go unconscious in the first split second of a fight. This lead to many jokes about narcolepsy. I had a player try a 2e psionic halfling, right after the book came out, and mainly just to try it. He was the hero of the party at first level...then quickly became the goat as it became apparent that he was just plain better than anyone else.

I can't say I've had any experience with the 3e or 4e psionics. I bought the 3e book, but exactly zero players were interested in playing one. They were commonly forbidden amongst my gaming circles in 2e, but I never had to ban them in 3e since then as they weren't mentioned except as a joke. (I haven't run or played 4e since they've been out.) The basic problem, as I see it, is that Psions are practically the same as wizards (filling a similar narrative role), but somehow always want to be different.

As far as whether they should be anywhere near the core....maybe in a module, but not the basic game. I guess it depends on how they do it.

A) Psions are a specialty mage/cleric thing. - I would be okay with this in a module about specialty casters.

B) Psions are a different class, but follow the model of other casters using default 9-levels of Vancian powers, with feats to get at wills or other mods. - Wouldn't be bad...but why bother? They would need to be very distinct in flavor and form from wizards, which is unlikely. Otherwise, just talk to your DM about flavoring your Wizard (or priest?) to hold his temples and squint when he casts instead of the normal shenanigans

C) Psions are a different class(es) and follow their own wonky mechanics. - I would not want this in basic/core, unless those wonky mechanics are the point of the module and extendable to other casters. Giving them their own special mechanics makes both the mechanics and abilities much harder to evaluate beside other classes and their abilities. That makes it much more likely to have psionicists seriously mis-powered compared to other characters. If they are to get their own mechanics...I dunno, put it in Dark Sun or something as a special campaign world book.

Additionally, for me, any of the three options can be made unpalatable with the inclusion of the idea that Psionics is somehow "not magic". The one guy babbles in an obscure language while wiggling his fingers and holding a staff....he's a wizard. The other guy clutches a holy symbol and beseeches some god for juice...he's a cleric. The third guy clutches a crystal and stares creepily...he's a psion. They all make weird/impossible things happen by performing apparently unrelated acts....i.e. magic. As far as I'm concerned, the idea that psionics is some kind of of uber trump magic needs to die in a fire.

That said, the inclusion of Psionics in the PHB core wouldn't stop me from buying it...or forbidding it in my games (if I see fit, who knows it could be awesome.)
 

This is the part I don't quite get, why are all those things okay, but not psionics? They are all psychic powers. So why should a class that specializes in them be so offensive?

Even if the mechanics would be exactly the same, the concept/flavor behind the classes is different enough. It's arcane lore from dusty books and ancient secrets (typical of traditional fantasy fiction, fairytales and gothic literature) vs. paranormal superpowers (typical of science fiction and horror movies).

Some people just don't care about the flavor given in printed books and easily change it to suit their tastes, but other people do care, and a lot, about the standard flavor of the game.

Just to make a silly example here, if the designer replaced the standard flavor (but keep the mechanic identical) of the Paladin with a new concept image and background based on mixing anime/manga with aliens and Hello Kitty, would you have no problem with that? A lot of people would.
 

Remove ads

Top