Sell me on Psionics
- Thread starter kaomera
- Start date
Thanee
First Post
Bacris said:
Why is that metagaming?
If you are a Psion, and you could just blast through the opposition and then retreat, rest and continue; why should you not? If you have the power, why not use it?
Because the DM would send something after you, when you happen to be low on power? Now THAT's metagaming...
Only, if there is a non-metagaming reason (i.e. 'that's no fun, if you kill everything' or the above-mentioned 'how long will the DM let me do this without interfering' is metagaming; 'we cannot rest, time is of the essence' is non-metagaming) to preserve power, there's an actual in-game reason to do so.
That's what I meant with *enforced* up there (though the threat is certainly enough, no disagreement here, you just have to be *forced* to go on instead of going to a safe retreat spot for rest, when you want to). You basically need a reason (time limit, usually) to keep rest at a minimum, then you will automatically have to preserve power, in order to stay viable for a longer time period.
In most higher level campaigns, that I have participated in, the control about when to go to rest was under control of the players (or rather the PCs), not the DM.
This is a problem, that also exists with spellcasting, to be fair, but to a lesser degree.
Bye
Thanee
Giltonio_Santos
Hero
Darklone said:
That's true as well; I missed that point. In fact I'd say the Wilder is everything a Sorcerer ever wanted to be. Whenever a player in my group wants to play a Sorcerer I point him to the Wilder first, it just represents raw mystical power much better.
Cheers,
Thanee said:
Indeed why not? and once you realize wizard's and clerics are quite capable of the same thing, you realize that the "nova" is not a uniquely psionic thing ...
True, it might be a bit easier for the novice to implement using psionics ... but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in arcane/divine.
I've seen it said before elsewhere: Psionics = nova for dummies ... arcane/divine = nova for the experienced ...
Thanee said:
Fair enough ..
to kaomera:
I'd recommend 3.5 psionics ....
I played in the old 1st ed psionics ... it was crap ...
I never really touched on the 2nd ed psionics .. so no comment.
I played with the 3rd ed psionics .. it was crappier than crap.
I'm still playing with 3.5 psionics, and I just love it ... I was routinely a wizard player, and since psionics, I haven't gone back .. I find psionics easier to use (hence less time number crunching, memorizing spells, planning, etc. and more time playing ... I play D&D for enjoyment not to torture myself in memorization techniques ...
)I find it (overall) more balanced than arcane/divine ....
True, there are a couple "problematic" powers ... keep in mind, there are definitely more than a few "problematic" spells as well ... so as a DM, it's up to you to keep things in check .. for both psionics and for arcane/divine ... if you see a problem spell/power .. it's your call to modify/ban it if you find it unbalancing to your campaign.
Using psionics = magic is purely for balance reasons. If you use any other method, you give a bit more "power" to the psionics in certain situations .. (and vice versa to arcane/divine in certain situations) ... so caution must be taken.
Ask yourself this .. how does arcane/divine magic interact in your game? Why should psionics be *that* different? If you want psionics to act differently, I'd recommend you do the same for arcane/divine ... (good luck on that ..
)The last campaign I played in, we used the semi-different option ... basically:
SR = PR - 10
PR = SR - 10
So if a Dragon was listed with SR 25 ... it also had PR 15 ... true, it was more susceptible to psionics .... but then again, it could also punch through psionic defences (ie PR) easier .. since the target it's hitting (say PR 20) only had SR of 10 ...
So it's an affect that goes both ways .... depends on your targets.
In our group (Druid, Wizard and Wilder) ... when we came across a high SR foe, the Wilder (me) stepped up to the plate ... but when we hit a high PR foe (ie psionic foe), the Wilder stepped back, and the Druid and Wizard mopped up ...
That's just team work ...
You'll also want to ask yourself how common psionics will be ... if it's not common, you may not even allow players to take it ... at least not without good reason or something .... it's your campaign, your choices ...
The current campaign I'm playing in, I'm playing a Xeph (psionic race), but nobody has any psionic classes - basically on request by the DM .. he didn't want everyone diving into psionic stuff right away. I did ask - and he agreed - to let me take a Psion (Nomad) as a cohort at level 6 ... so we'll get our psionics eased in a bit ... but it's not going to be the driving force of the party ...
Set your limits, stick with them ... psionics is easy to work into any campaign ... flavour wise and mechanically ... don't be afraid of it just because it's different.
Psionics is not more powerful than arcane.
Arcane is not more powerful than divine.
Divine is not more powerful than psionics.
Divine is not more powerful than arcane.
... etc.
They are all "different" .. that's all ... and different does not mean "more powerful" or broken ..
Cheers!!
And good luck!
Thanee said:Yep, that is also something I can easily agree with; for raw mystical power the Wilder would be a good fit.
The Wilder is also a much better designed class than the Psion.
Bye
Thanee
I agree ... having played a Wilder ... the thing that bugs me is the Enervation mechanic.
The way it's all written currently .. there really is no reason to take a Wilder over a Psion with Overchannel + Talented + Psionic Meditation ..
Psion gets more powers, 2 more feats ....
wilder gets better BaB (weee ...)
Wild surge gets worse as the Wilder increases in level ..
Overchannel gets better ...
*grrrrr*
I really wish they'd revamp that mechanic ...
The_Ditto said:Indeed why not? and once you realize wizard's and clerics are quite capable of the same thing, you realize that the "nova" is not a uniquely psionic thing ...
True, it might be a bit easier for the novice to implement using psionics ... but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in arcane/divine.
I've seen it said before elsewhere: Psionics = nova for dummies ... arcane/divine = nova for the experienced ...
Just because someone said it does not make it true. Psions are the Nova specialists right out of the box. Sure, there are some splat book feats and such that allow arcane and divine casters to catch up a bit, but Psions still out-nova them, especially with an experienced player and a well designed Psion.
And, the Psion can continue to Nova or not at his option. Wizards and Clerics must choose ahead of time whether to take Nova type spells and how many of them to take, and if they choose wrong, they're hosed. It's only the Sorcerer / Favored Soul type casters who even have a chance of all day Novas.
The_Ditto said:
This is a terrible house rule.
-10 modifiers are not worth having in the game. It's way too large. It's only a D20 after all. For all intents and purposes, this hosue rule is not much different than having psionics auto-punch through SR and spells auto-punch through PR. -4 would have been a vastly superior rule.
You're telling me it's not metagaming for an adventurer - who lives in a world where the stuff of nightmares is something that is constantly a threat - to say "i'm just going to use up everything I've got and rest" every time something shows up is realistic?
No. That's metagaming. When a dragon or a horde of orcs or an assassin are real threats, you'd save the resources you could "just in case." They use what they need to, not necessarily everything.
No. That's metagaming. When a dragon or a horde of orcs or an assassin are real threats, you'd save the resources you could "just in case." They use what they need to, not necessarily everything.
Nonlethal Force
First Post
I resisted psionics for a long time. Finally, I broke down and bought the XPH. Now I simply don't put it back down. Until the release of the PHB II ... the XPH was equaled in my collection only by the draconomicon. Now I easily consider all three of those books equal in coolness and are easily (in my opinion) the best 3.x products WotC has published to date.
Why I love psionics is easy: The system is easy to learn and easy to play. It has as much potential for flavor as any arcane/divine casting class without the pages of bothersome preparation. For games that bog down because of spellcasting, I've found when the players shift over to psionics the games (especially combat) moves quicker. Of course, I still allow divine/arcane/psionics in game. Oh, and I use the transparency. Why make things more difficult? Just give it all transparency.
As to your game, I'd let your players decide. The flavor might seem the same to you, but your players might not see the world exactly in your eyes. Even if you use magic = psionics transparency your players might feel the difference more than you as the DM and they might like it that way. There is little in the XPH that will outright break a game, so adding it for your players to experiment with will not be a dangerous move. [I admit there are a few things that are strong, but in my experience nothing in there is absolutely game-breaking.]
Why I love psionics is easy: The system is easy to learn and easy to play. It has as much potential for flavor as any arcane/divine casting class without the pages of bothersome preparation. For games that bog down because of spellcasting, I've found when the players shift over to psionics the games (especially combat) moves quicker. Of course, I still allow divine/arcane/psionics in game. Oh, and I use the transparency. Why make things more difficult? Just give it all transparency.
As to your game, I'd let your players decide. The flavor might seem the same to you, but your players might not see the world exactly in your eyes. Even if you use magic = psionics transparency your players might feel the difference more than you as the DM and they might like it that way. There is little in the XPH that will outright break a game, so adding it for your players to experiment with will not be a dangerous move. [I admit there are a few things that are strong, but in my experience nothing in there is absolutely game-breaking.]
Similar Threads
