Psionics Opinion

[Terraism]

Chengarino - that's exactly my point. I really like the idea of psionics - but a lack of support makes them seem forced if you insert them into a 'standard' campaign world. Take Greyhawk, which is technically our new core-world. Yes, it has psionics, in theory. Apparently the Scarlet Brotherhood are all over psionics. (Everyone who knows more about Greyhawk, which'll be quite a few of you, I'm sure, feel free to correct me, but I know it's some group there...) Unfortunately, I've yet to see anything published by Wizards that makes them feel like a part of things - it's exotic, yes, which is the appeal... but it shouldn't be alien.

 

[Phowett]

Vote: Psionics are great. We include them as playable classes when they are apropriate for the setting.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Re: Psionics Greatest Weakness

... the non-existent psionic published modules ... tim

Hey Chengarino, I highly suggest you check out Of Sound Mind by Piratecat. I played it at the ENworld Chi Town meet, then got it and ran it for my group. It's probably the best low level module I have played/run. I was gonna write a review but one of my players stole mine after playing it so he can run it at GenCon.

The module is supposedly for 1st level characters, but is tough enough to probably require 2nd levels. It also has notes on upgrading the module up to 4th level. It also comes with Creature Collection counters for all the monsters! A very fun time, give it a try.

 

[Garmorn]

A reformed Psionic hater.

I hate both first and second edition Psi rules. 3rd Edition rules are great but the classes do need to be improved. They have the feel of being over weaken in response to the earlier blunders.

I am going to use them in all of my future campains but with the ITCK mods (not including the spell conversions).

 

[dren]

I've always thought psionics were fun, but if wizards, sorcerors and psions use the same spells - what's the point! It's a slight change of flavour, when I want a different meal entirely. There are some interesting variations in IFCK but they are essentially a type of wizards.

Psionics fit into my campaign style. If they don't in yours, then the psi-handbook will probably be useless.

dren

 

[arwink]

I use the psionics rules and fully integrated them into the campaign. All in all, just as well known and common as arcane and divine magic. One of my players is really, really into the concept though, which does influence how heavily I use the rules though.

I don't allow the magic as psionics rules for ITCK, although I've offered to consider it on a case by case basis if a player really wants to use a spell or thinks it should be a power.

 

[Ron]

The pool wasn't very suited to express my opinion. I don't have the psionics book, but I have borrowed it from a friend. I didn't liked any of the early version of D&D psionics and I didn't liked the new one. The problem is that I don't like mixing magic with psionics. I thought of the possibility of running a campaign where magic would be replaced by psionics. I still think that this would be a cool game. However, D&D psionics isn't that different from magic, which would spoil the mood of a campaign such as this.

 

[Archimedes]

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've just got a copy of ITCK tonight. I'm beginning to suspect the Psionics Handbook was a bit rushed.

I agree the secondary discipline rules improve things, but the real problem was basing power access on the same system as spells. IMO a better system for Psionics would be based on skills and feats. Then prerequisites could then be tailored appropriately.

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.

I wonder why they didn't do that to begin with?

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.

Even though I'd never allow it, I'm glad it's there for the people who want 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.

It improves the system while taking five more steps in the wrong direction. It's time to work on the homebrew.

Sam

 

[Archimedes]

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.

Point based flexibility is certainly one advantage.

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.

I agree that the 3e Psi system has a 4-color flavor to it. I'm having the same problems you are with integrating Psionics into the game.

Sam

 

[Archimedes]

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!!!

I'm wondering if it's possible for a psionics system to have the flavor I require and the power and variety you need. It should be possible, but if it was easy they would have done it. Anyway, we'll see.

Sam