Psionics Opinion

[Archimedes]

I’m trying to get a feel for public opinion on the 3e Psionics system. Local players are lukewarm on Psionics at best.

Sam

 

[Roland Delacroix]

This poll is screwed up. You are trying to condense two questions into a single poll: 'Do you use psionics' and 'What do you think of the psionics system'. As it stands now, my group uses psionics a bit but I think the system needs a little help. We use the If Thought Could Kill rules and they work fine (except psi combat, but thats another rant).

If you want to get results that mean anything you should probably alter the poll, maybe post one and then another one later.

 

[Archimedes]

This poll is screwed up. You are trying to condense two questions into a single poll: 'Do you use psionics' and 'What do you think of the psionics system'. As it stands now, my group uses psionics a bit but I think the system needs a little help. We use the If Thought Could Kill rules and they work fine (except psi combat, but thats another rant).

If you want to get results that mean anything you should probably alter the poll, maybe post one and then another one later.

The question is 'What do you think of the Psionics system'. I suspect the local players are a bit out of sinc with the rest of you and this poll will at least determine that.

I don't have If Thoughts Could Kill, but I heard it actualy makes the system worse by opening up all arcane spells as powers! In your opinion, what does ITCK improve?

Sam

 

[MJEggertson]

If it wasn't for If Thoughts Could Kill, I'd never use psionics. The rule I like the most, is the re-introduction of secondary disciplines: how a psion isn't so restricted anymore to a specific (and at high levels, a very strict) area of study. Now, a psion can chose two secondary disciplines, in which, he/she can use their primary discipline ability score in place of that discipline's actual ability score. Now high-level psions at least have some diversity, since rarely would a character have mulitple disciplines with scores of 19. With this though, comes a more limited power progression, but I like it much better.

I also love the power scaling rule. I hated how all the powers were so static, and didn't scale with levels like all the spells do.

ITCK does outline how to turn spells into powers, but it's more there as a guide to how to translate spells to powers, if you like. And by no means, do you have to allow it.

There's a few other things too, like extra feats, a hand-full of new powers, some of which are interesting. All in all, I don't think you can go wrong since it's only a $5 download, if I recall correctly.

 

[Tcheb]

I've never been thrilled with them. I've got a player who loves them, though, because he thinks it gives him some advantage over magic users.

My problem (and maybe this is just my campaign) is that I've never quite figured out how to mix them with magic well. Psionics have always felt very modern, and superhero-ish, but I just can't place them in a fantasy sword and sorcery setting.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

The question is 'What do you think of the Psionics system'. I suspect the local players are a bit out of sinc with the rest of you and this poll will at least determine that.

I don't have If Thoughts Could Kill, but I heard it actualy makes the system worse by opening up all arcane spells as powers! In your opinion, what does ITCK improve?

Sam

You asked: "Psionics are great. We run with them all the time "

"The system works, but could be much better. We use Psionics if a player really wants to play a Psion. "

"We have the Psionics Handbook,
but nobody wants to run a Psion. "

Then what the heck is that? In my group, myself and a few other players dig psionics. "Psionics are great" But the way it works out, "nobody wants to play a psion" because other classes fit the current group better. I have a psychic warrior player, though. Where do I vote? I compromised, I didn't.

You are free to listen to whoever you want to, but the general concensus is that Psions as presented in the Psi HB are a little weak to very weak, depending on the campaign. Personally, I have playtested a Savant and a Telepath to 7th level, an Egoist to 5th. I find them very weak, but decent with ITCK. There are hordes of mathematical theorists on any board that will 'prove' psions are just as good, but most people who played psions, agrees that they need a little help.

ITCK improves stat dependency immensley, but still keeps the flavor there. The scaling rule is great as well, it makes burn Psions a reasonable character. Still not as good a mobile artillery platform as the Sorcerer, but thats fine since Psions get other perks. Opening up arcane spells was much needed. Arcaners have hundreds of spells among all the books out there, psions needed more as well. Keeping the psionic favor is all in how you describe it, Mage Armor? NO! Thats my Psychokinetic Force Armor!!!

 

[Terraism]

I really enjoy the idea of psionics - I'm not completely thrilled with the rules, but then again, I'm not completely thrilled with a lot of things in 3rd Edition. Where it stands, though, is that I'd enjoy using psionics in my campaign, save for two things - I find that integrating it, in character, seems slightly awkward, and, moreover, I dislike the actual use of the system. It seems so little supported, that it makes it difficult to run alongside 'traditional' classes... ok, so I'm not explaining this well. What I think it boils down to is that, while I love the idea of psionics, I tend to only have the time to run pregenerated modules, and I dislike the idea of only the PC(s) being psionic, since I rarely find something with others.

 

[chengarino]

Psionics Greatest Weakness

I like psionics. it's a nice change from the usual wizard/cleric magic choices. However, the current psions are too weak. And we all know that ITCK solved many of those problems. I can't wait for the new books from Malhavoc.

The greatest weakness of psionics is the lack of support from WoTC and other publishers. Look at the _short_ list of psionic monsters ... the non-existent psionic published modules ... none of WoTC's campaigns use psionics ... ELH's do-it-yourself-approach.

C'mon, none of the encounter tables have been updated in DMG for PsiHB. It's just more of the back-handed-support. Just more work for anyone who may want to use psionics.

I can live with the PC weakness. I don't want psionics to sound/feel just like:
1) a wizard without a spellbook,
2) a sorcerer who uses the point system, or
3) an arcane spellcaster with different names for the same things.

That's why I like Monte's Bard. It's different and it adds a whole new flavor to the class. Clerics are different than the arcane casters (more than just mechanism, but also different spells) for good reasons as well.

But the greatest weakness is (and continues to be) WoTC themselves. Psionics should have been in PHB IMO. Psionics should not have been all about 'exceptions' and 'make-it-just-like-that-on-your-time.'

tim

 

[Voneth]

I don't have If Thoughts Could Kill, but I heard it actualy makes the system worse by opening up all arcane spells as powers! In your opinion, what does ITCK improve?

Sam

That depends on whether you consider DND psionics to be psionics or not. One can look at DND psionics as either a very fantasy version of psionics or as rules system for point-based magic.

A GM doesn't have to allow everything from an optional book. But the ITCK rules allow a GM to boost DND psionics in his game to the level that suits his taste, as a complementry class to magic or as a replacment for spell casters.

 

[Fenes 2]

I missed the "I hate psionics, but if a player really wants to play a psion, then give me the balanced 3E "magic-form-psionics" over the broken 2E munchkin-psionics anyday" option, which summs up my stance on psionics.