Response to Psionics Nerf (Move from inappropriate placement in House Rules thread)

[irdeggman]

On this I agree.

But DC's claim that the psion's ability to go nova is the fault of a DM whom doesn't introduce mindfeeders/power leech/gray glugons is a huge insult to many DM's, akin to calling them unintelligent, fat, and lazy.

Yeah his post did come across that way.

I will say from observations of DM's posting on the "nova" issue and how to resolve it almost all involve a "I realized this. . .". Indicating that the DM inserted psionics without full understanding how to incorporate them into their game. Psionics are different enough to not be a part of the core rules and thus require special consideration (and understanding) to adequately implement.

For example a DM who runs on average 1 encounter per day will have a huge problem with psioncs (as well as spontaneous spell casters). For those who realy on this method of game play psionics and spontaneous spell casting just make a bad fit.

People always seem to fall back on the same replies on the ways of keeping psionics in check. Almost all of which are very true. And those in opposition seem to frequently fall back on the DM shouldn't have to change how he runs his game in order to account for a specific PC. Also a true statement. The real issue here is the fact that in these cases the DM did not do an adequate job on his homework before allowing in an optional set of rules. Just for the record I would also say the same thing before allowing in a non-standard spell or a Prestige Class. The DM has to research what he is allowing in the game and figure out if it fits and if so how to best work it in.

 

[Nail]

The DM has to research what he is allowing in the game and figure out if it fits and if so how to best work it in.

...all well and good.

How much research did you do before adding the latest splatbook to your game? I'd wager that for most of us the answer is "reading the book over a few times". And as we all know from seeing errors and bogus powers crop up in published products, even the people that wrote the book miss things. So reading does not equal "research".

You have to play-test it, within your own group.

....and how is that any different that just allowing it and seeing how things go? So much for "research".

 

[Thanee]

Psionics are not broken.

Anything, that needs specific counters to be used regularily, in order to push it down to reasonable levels, is quite obviously broken.

Your argument very much strengthens the position, that psionics are one of those things.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Nifft]

unintelligent, fat, and lazy.

Hey! I ... uh ... need to go to the gym, huh?

From my experience, Psionics is no worse than Arcane spellcasting. The optimized single-round damage is around the same.

The big difference is that Psionics doesn't need much work to get good single-round damage, though it won't progress much past good. Wizardry can go from okay to WHAT?! (better than merely good), but it takes more work.

That said, Arcane spellcasting has strengths Psionics can't touch -- party buffs, for a notable example. Haste is still a very popular spell, and stoneskin is best when it's keeping the meatshield alive. So I don't much mind if Psionics also has some strengths. Direct damage is one of those strengths.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Slaved]

Anything, that needs specific counters to be used regularily, in order to push it down to reasonable levels, is quite obviously broken.

I use specific counters in my game for every single tactic that there is. That is what a game where certain aspects of it come down to a rock-paper-scissors does.

Do you mean that everything is quite obviously broken or are the only things that are quite obviously broken the ones that you have not looked at enough for the counters to be as readily apparent as other parts of the system?

Since the most of the same counters apply to psionics as apply to casters, with a few unique ones for each side, I am not sure why psionics would be a problem.

 

[Arkhandus]

Anything, that needs specific counters to be used regularily, in order to push it down to reasonable levels, is quite obviously broken.

Spellcasters are broken, then.

As are Rogues.

:\

 

[Thanee]

Emphasis on the words 'needs' and 'reasonable levels'. So, definitely no Rogues there.

Bye
Thanee

 

[irdeggman]

...all well and good.

How much research did you do before adding the latest splatbook to your game? I'd wager that for most of us the answer is "reading the book over a few times". And as we all know from seeing errors and bogus powers crop up in published products, even the people that wrote the book miss things. So reading does not equal "research".

You have to play-test it, within your own group.

....and how is that any different that just allowing it and seeing how things go? So much for "research".

With all of the postings and discussion on psionics (for years) it is my opinion that anyone who just inserts it and then gets surprised becasue they didn't understand the system and then posts on boards for possible "remadies" realy only has themselves to blame.

I have chosen not to insert Incarnum into my games for precisely this reason. I don't understand it well enough to just throw it in.

There is a huge difference between inserting a class or feat and an entire system. Psionics is a system as is Incarnum. There are a lot of other issues than merely handling a single class.

I would definitely go along with the play-test system for when attempting to insert something drastically new (like psionics or incarnum) - but that should be specified up front and not as a result of "it is broken because I don't play the game in a way that is conducive to the system". If the game being run is not in a way that is conducive to a system then don't use the system. If for example the DM typically only runs a single encounter per day then psionics is not a good match, neither is spontaneous casters.

My main point was that before inserting something into a game the DM needs to think it over carefully or else he is asking for trouble - and that is proven time and time again on these boards alone.

 

[green slime]

With all of the postings and discussion on psionics (for years) it is my opinion that anyone who just inserts it and then gets surprised becasue they didn't understand the system and then posts on boards for possible "remadies" realy only has themselves to blame.

I have chosen not to insert Incarnum into my games for precisely this reason. I don't understand it well enough to just throw it in.

There is a huge difference between inserting a class or feat and an entire system. Psionics is a system as is Incarnum. There are a lot of other issues than merely handling a single class.

I would definitely go along with the play-test system for when attempting to insert something drastically new (like psionics or incarnum) - but that should be specified up front and not as a result of "it is broken because I don't play the game in a way that is conducive to the system". If the game being run is not in a way that is conducive to a system then don't use the system. If for example the DM typically only runs a single encounter per day then psionics is not a good match, neither is spontaneous casters.

My main point was that before inserting something into a game the DM needs to think it over carefully or else he is asking for trouble - and that is proven time and time again on these boards alone.

Perhaps the books should carry disclaimers, and indicate the amount of playtesting the product has been through.

 

[KarinsDad]

Me personally, I'd just tell the player not to nova "or else" and leave it at that, but it's his call as DM

"You can play a GOD, but you cannot display any god-like powers or else."


That's a lame solution.


My solution is as follows:

1) Give every PC high utility low frequency "go to the well" options. For example, the first level Wizard finds a Wand of 5D6 Fireballs with 2 charges in it. He might not use it at level one, but he probably will use it sooner or later when things look desperate. But with only 2 charges, it is definitely something he should conserve for an opportune time. Good choices for high utility low frequency options are scrolls, potions, and wands, but even something like having an NPC owe the PCs a favor can be used as such an option.

2) Create encounters of increasing frequency and difficulty. As a specific adventure progresses, each encounter tends to be slightly more difficult than the preceding one (with a few exceptions of some easier encounters just to break things up) and more back to back encounters occur, leading up to a climatic encounter at the end.

In the case of Psionics, this forces the psionic PC to either conserve, or become nearly useless later on. Sure, the PCs can rest up for the night, but sometimes, this option results in more difficulties (e.g. giving the NPC opposition time to reinforce or to set up defenses or have NPCs get closer to the PC goal or whatever). And, what works for the psionic PC here also works for other PC spell casters. Going Nova might work real well against a given encounter, but it will use up resources that might be better used later on.


To me, part of the fun of the game is to overcome significant challenges. Telling the player how to play his PC (or how not to play his PC as per "don't nova or else") does not enable him to do that. Letting him learn for himself is what will be fun for most players.

So, I try to present significant challenges, but at the same time, I give the PCs additional high utility low frequency options so that even in those cold dice situations where everything appears to be going against the PCs, they still have those additional options to choose from. And going Nova or not is just another choice which will affect the overall outcome of the current adventure as much as it does the current encounter. Going Nova is a player choice, not a DM choice, and it will result in changes to future encounters by definition.


Psionics are like any other game elements. They have pros and cons. It's easy to maintain balance with them if the DM allows both the pros and the cons to occur as opposed to just the pros.