The role of (expanded) psionics in a magical world...

[Graf]

The new Expanded Psionics Handbook has brought psonics, and psionic-users (psions, wilders) as a group up to the rough power level of magic-users (wizards and sorcerers). While the discussions about which is more powerful, why, which has more potential for breakage and so on will continue indefinitely I'm more curious about the impact of this power change on the role that psionics plays in campaigns.

In 3.0 a psion really wasn't going to be doing a lot of blaster type damage. No psionic powers could really deal out damage at the same rate as standbys like Magic Missile or Fireball (at least in the core material, I can't speak for everything on the web sites or the WotC Minds Eye column). Given their restrictions it was difficult to imagine Psionics displacing arcane magic as the "reality altering method of choice". [Divine magic, requiring the support of gods fills a different category in my mind]
The different manifesting stats meant that there was no standard psionic type, psions were as likely to be smart as dumb, wise as quick and so forth, so the role of the arcanists as the "guys who live in big towers with major power and advise rulers throughout the land" was also pretty safe.

With the new rule set it seems like a straight blasting psion seems to be a very real possibility and a rough check on a low-level Wilder suggests that their damage output is certainly in the same ball park as a sorcerers (I've only looked at lower levels).
Likewise psions are now all intelligence based (I wonder why not wisdom but that's probably just me) and have access to all knowledges as class skills.

While psionics is presented as an alien or marginal power in most game worlds that include it at all (GH, FR, SL, **, etc) the increased powerlevel, and access to abilities that were primarily the balliwick of wizards seems likely to change this. Unlike wizardry, which tends to involve lots of research in libraries and has an image of jealously guarded secrets psionics is basically a case of motivation. If a psion wants to learn a power they just do.

Especially campaigns where psionics is relatively common and psionics use is not significantly more stigmatized than magic I could see myself struggling to explain why psionics wasn't more prevalent. Why academies of psions don't sit next to wizardly academies... why rulers aren't advised as psions... why squads of psionic blasters don't ride alongside the cavalry during major engagements.... and so on.

**The world of Darksun is actually what got me thinking about this whole thread. Magic is the big-bad of the setting. Its responsible for completely destroying the environment, the secrets are hidden and controlled by the dragon kings, wizards with all their books, spell components and paraphernalia are (not irrationally) persecuted. Psionics is common, but in Advanced 2nd edition and 3.0, lacked significant power in certain respects. A character with a high intelligence looking to maximize their personal power was definitely tempted to follow the path of the wizard.
Now that a psion has all the destructive power of a wizard, can summon constructs of comparable power to monster summoning spells and so forth I wonder if the setting is still internally consistent.

 

[Gez]

I don't have the EPH yet, but I doubt I'll upgrade wholly to it if I get it. The powers will be replaced by the new, but not the classes...

 

[Yair]

Come to think of it, you are right - psions SHOULD be based on wisdom. Makes much more sense.
I suspect it had to do with wanting all three mental stats - I believe psychic warriors use Wis, and wilders use Cha, IIRC.

As for their role in the campaign - I agree completely. Psionics, once intruduced, need not be kept to only a few practitioners. (Although the DM can always come up with reasons that it is, of course.)

 

[Yair]

I don't have the EPH yet, but I doubt I'll upgrade wholly to it if I get it. The powers will be replaced by the new, but not the classes...

Why? I greatly prefer the XPH. And I don't think the PsiH classes will work as written without change using XPH lists; you will need to make some sort of amalgram.

 

[Graf]

The new book was definitely stimulating. They took some risks; I like the fact they added a lot of new/different stuff (even if it isn't all successful, it's better than getting all the same stuff again).

Yeah, that's my problem. Having psionics as a big part of a campaign is
1. Often unpopular with players who don't understand it and want to be playing D&D not "D&D with X-men".
2. Kind of out of line with the "role" the system plays; that of the alien-slightly-mysterious force
3. A lot of work if you use a published campaign

In the setting I run in the most frequently (SL) psionics isn't available normally; it's spread intermittently as a side effect of a what is effectively a psionic disease with a language vector. This, along with cultural and historical factors, helps explain it's rarity.

But other worlds seem to be constructed with an implicit assumption that magic is generally more useful than a psionic power of the same level.

In a lot of worlds that incorporate the new psionics system it seems like psionics would, given it's power, availability, utility and so forth, be extremely prevalent. But it's not that way in the published campaign material. Access to other kinds of magic has an inherent world/story reason for why it's limited:
Wizards learn from
mentors, who train an apprentice at a time, training each apprentice takes years and they only pick the best,
colleges of which there are a limited number (and accept only a limited number of students)
Sorcerers are generally born with their power, either the dragon blooded
Clerics, druids and bards likewise are naturally limited by the fact that access is limited by the god, church, druidic society or individual master/group that someone has to be trained by.

Psionics, as it's presented in the books, doesn't seem to require teaching, or be provided by some external source.

It seems like it's introduction would tend toward triggering some sort of psionic revolution, where anyone with above average intelligence could gain access to power.

 

[Snoweel]

With the new rule set it seems like a straight blasting psion seems to be a very real possibility and a rough check on a low-level Wilder suggests that their damage output is certainly in the same ball park as a sorcerers (I've only looked at lower levels).
Likewise psions are now all intelligence based (I wonder why not wisdom but that's probably just me) and have access to all knowledges as class skills.

Please tell me they haven't done away with sandals, crystals and tofu, thematically.

 

[Deadguy]

Yes, Graf, you do raise an interesting and reasonable point about the power of Psions in the new rules. Quite rightly they are made so that they can match the power of Wizards overall - as was found earlier, no-one wants to play a class that is set out from day one to be markedly weaker, when your niche is essentially the same one.

Rightly though this must be combined with the Psion's other advantages (note I am not saying the Psion is too powerul in a campaign, merely that he has other advantages) - not inconvenienced by armour, not requiring weird material components, inherently able to hide any actual display of (subtle) powers... Yes, Psions should fill the same niches that wizards do, as advisers and protectors. And in some cases, might well fill them better.

For specific campaigns, I suppose that the most obvious element is to say that (beyond the PCs) few people have the actual talent to become Psions - that they lack the mental apparatus that lets them tap this inner source of power. Much like you can use the idea of needing a certain 'Gift' to be a Wizard or Sorcerer, a Psion (or Wilder or Psychic Warrior) might need a similar thing, some subtle 'Talent'. Indeed, there happens to be a feat that can be used in just such a way...

But it is true, in a campaign set up where access to magic and psionics is not restricted, as DM you must decide what role the two powers hold relative to one another. But it is good, imo, that the two can be competetive now in the same campaign.

 

[Gideon]

I don't have the XPH, although I hear excellent things about it.

There probably would not be an immediate switch to psionics for almost all cultural and game world reasons.

Most settings aren't saturated with psionics. When people were children they didn't hear about a tattoed and crystal covered man with determined will saving the day. They heard about the wily old man in his tower crouched over his staff.

In FR, one would presume Elminster is famous. (don't know for sure, never read the books) There is a god dedicated to magic. Magic is very very present and famous. Magic is in the limelight, psionics is not.

As an example, look at the difference between a Fleugal Horn and a Trumpet. They are approximately equal in range and part. They differ in tone and volume. The real difference is in exposure. Elementeray school kids are very rarely given a fleugal horn to start with mostly they are given trumpets. Why? The trumpet is simply the normal route, the standard.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Khaalis]

Most settings aren't saturated with psionics. When people were children they didn't hear about a tattoed and crystal covered man with determined will saving the day. They heard about the wily old man in his tower crouched over his staff.

In FR, one would presume Elminster is famous. (don't know for sure, never read the books) There is a god dedicated to magic. Magic is very very present and famous. Magic is in the limelight, psionics is not.

As an example, look at the difference between a Fleugal Horn and a Trumpet. They are approximately equal in range and part. They differ in tone and volume. The real difference is in exposure. Elementeray school kids are very rarely given a fleugal horn to start with mostly they are given trumpets. Why? The trumpet is simply the normal route, the standard.

Hope that makes sense.

Good points. Look at it this way. 90% of most campaign worlds are comprised of commoners and average uneducated "folk" (or at least clueless about the workings of magic). What would a commoner see if they were to witness a Wizard vs. Psion duel in the streets of their little hamlet? Would they even have the remotest clue of the metaphysical differences between the Wizard and the Psion?

No.

They would simply see the effects of their powers such as flight, blasting energy, invisibility, etc. To the 100 witnesses to the battle, word would simply spread of a mage duel.

In worlds like FR, "Mind Mages" as they are referred to, can be/are more common than most people give credit for - they are just more often than not confused for a Wizard or Sorcerer.

 

[Vrecknidj]

My favorite experiences with psionics were with 1st edition (admittedly they were overpowerful then). But, in particular, my favorite experiences were before the Dragon Magazine article that presented the Psionicist class. What I liked about psionics was that there were these powers that manifested in some people and not others. (Not unlike, say, a capacity for calculus, or a talent for playing piano.) If you had it, you could nurture it. If you didn't have it, then you didn't have it.

At this level, a feats-and-skills system, or, perhaps just a feat system, could work well in the third edition of the game. Those who had psionics could, in effect, just have certain kinds of feats that others didn't have.

But, this is an entirely different sort of addition to the game than what psionics has offered since 2e. I agree that, with the XPH, psionics stands as an alternative to magic.

One playable way to approach this might be to have a campaign where psionic types and arcane casters are enemies at some deep level. This would give the DM some flexibility, but some constraints as well (it might well be impossible to have both psions and wizards in the same group, for example). But, it could offer some fun scenarios.

Dave